IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: LABEL FOR USE AFTER A PERIODIC INSPECTION AND TEST
Topic Summary: Your views please?
Created On: 14 July 2016 07:26 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 14 July 2016 07:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



John Peckham

Posts: 8783
Joined: 23 April 2005

Following a periodic inspection and test of an installation there is a requirement to fit a label complying with 514.12.1.

You will recall my thread on someone I know having complied with a council's request to have a rented premises tested they complied with the requirement but the installation was a big fail. However the council ticked the box because the installation had indeed met their requirement in that it had been tested.

Digging a bit deeper on this subject I have found out that it is a common practice for less than scrupulous landlords, letting agents and estate agents to point to a Periodic label as evidence of a safe installation regardless of what an EICR may say.

A asked my sister in law who is a big cheese in a local authority housing department what she thought the label indicated and she thought the installation would be safe as "why would you put a label on an unsafe installation". She thought they were like PAT labels.

I know of one electrical contractor who won't put a label on an "unsatisfactory" installation as he thinks they should only go on safe installations.

What do you think of the idea of a label that warns the owner/occupant that the installation is"unsatisfactory"?

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/
 14 July 2016 07:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



paulskyrme

Posts: 1285
Joined: 12 February 2003

OK John,

I like the idea of a fail label, however, controversial, if I get an unsatisfactory & I'm not doing the remedial works (thank goodness), I simply mark the label as next inspection the next day.
Like it or not, compliant?
IMHO yes, the installation is not satisfactory, thus, it requires work and should be re-inspected for compliance immediately.
 14 July 2016 07:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

Something needs to change as the existing label can be very deceiving.

Andy
 14 July 2016 08:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

LoL - the gold club gearing up again

Please stop wearing your pants outside your trousers - it's not a cool look

When you get your own little book for domestics, do what you like - until then stop adding evermore pointless requirements to the one I have to use

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 14 July 2016 09:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

A lot of my clients tenants don't even know how to read a electric or gas meter, never mind understand that having a sticker on the consumer unit with a logo on it and references to regulations along with references to British Standards doesn't mean the electrical installation is safe, but it might do!

Andy
 14 July 2016 09:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4317
Joined: 21 November 2008

Originally posted by: OMS

LoL - the gold club gearing up again



Please stop wearing your pants outside your trousers - it's not a cool look



When you get your own little book for domestics, do what you like - until then stop adding evermore pointless requirements to the one I have to use



OMS


Well this s how thick I am; I dont know what you mean by that. It's a question about a label, what difference does it matter what type of installation it is?

It's a funny thing though - there is a box to tick to say that there is a label for the next inspection stuck on. So, you are supposed to be inspecting the existing installation, so why are you expected to stick a label on and then tick a box to say you have done so?

The report asks for the next inspection date, so presumably this is what should be recorded on the sticky label. However the report says subject to any C1 or C2's being rectified. The PI label doesn't.

Now I can tell you that facility managers for huge companies, large national companies, see the PI label giving a date of several years in the future assuming that the installation is safe. So it's not really a silly post is it.

The report should be understandable to the person receiving it; clear, not a confusion. So if we are required to affix a label, it should be a notice of the condition of the installation of refer to a report. Saying a next inspection date is in 5 years is misleading.

Edited: 14 July 2016 at 10:03 PM by leckie
 14 July 2016 09:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

Deceptive.
 14 July 2016 10:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 9953
Joined: 18 January 2003

Scores on the doors

Edited: 14 July 2016 at 10:13 PM by sparkingchip
 14 July 2016 10:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4317
Joined: 21 November 2008

Good idea
 15 July 2016 12:14 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mapj1

Posts: 9346
Joined: 22 July 2004

what form of label do you have in mind and what do you expect the building owner to do about it?
I'm thinking that no one tests their RCDs quarterly, or gives a monkeys about colours of wire, so you need to be careful.

I can see the point in having a red flag for an installation that is so dangerous it cannot in good faith be re-energised.
But I would reserve that for defects that really expose the user to immediate shock risks such as bare live metal that can be touched.

Things that only make ADS dysfunctional, such as L-N reversals, missing earthing may or may not qualify.
Things that are still single fault to danger, or may be a long term fire risk,single insulated cores, non-discriminating cascades of fuses and so on slightly overloaded cables, not really.

it is important to separate "actually dangerous" from just "not to BS7671",and we know from the queries that come up here that this can be hard with EICRs, without adding another decision layer of 'shall I red flag it?'.
And anything graduated, like ' a little bit pregnant' is doomed to end badly - so no marks out of 94 and 2/3 please.

-------------------------
regards Mike
 15 July 2016 06:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Thripster

Posts: 806
Joined: 22 August 2006

I interpret OMS's comments to mean (a) stop trying to introduce changes to the regulations by the scheme operators for financial gain (b) regulations affecting domestic installations may not necessarily apply to the wider electrical industry (c) a separate set of regulaions is envisaged for domestic/small installations (d) domestic installations are unworthy of him.

Regards
 15 July 2016 06:55 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4317
Joined: 21 November 2008

Well the regs apply to all installation, so it doesn't matter if its domestic or not.

But the present label does lead to confusion. As I said, the recommended date for the next inspection on the report of an EICR also adds the reference subject to all C1 and C2 defects being rectified. The label does not. So imagine you self a property and the purchaser sees a label on the DB saying the next inspection is not due for 5 years; what do they think? Possibly that the installation has been recently inspected and everything is fine. Except it might not be. But we are required to affix this label.

So I don't think it is confusing to have a label that indicates an EICR ref, and a comment that dangerous or potentially dangerous non-compliance have been found, and a date for a review. That would be clearer and safer in my opinion. Other than that, I agree with Paul and think the next inspection due date on the label would be better to indicate a shorter time depending on its condition. The report can still indicate a longer period subject to the defects being corrected. It's not a very neat solution though.

Anyway, it's time for work so I must get my work gear on. It's a bit difficult getting my underpants on over the top of my overalls though
 15 July 2016 08:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 15812
Joined: 13 August 2003

LoL - the gold club gearing up again

I'm with JP on this one. It's not about trying to make the system any more complicated or even more extensive than originally intended - just recognising that there is a flaw in the current implementation - i.e. recognising that most ordinary people when seeing a 'test label' do presume it indicates a successful test (clearly not what the committee would have intended).

I raised a similar concern back in the days when I had an input to GN 3 - but the general attitude was that GN 3 wasn't the place to re-write the words specified by regulations so it fell by the wayside - but the suggestion then was along the lines of simply to adding to the label, between 'Date of last inspection' and 'Recommended date of next inspection' one extra line on the label that read 'Result of that inspection:' with options of 'Satisfactory' or 'Unsatisfactory'.

I take Mike's point about differing severities - it's easier now with the demise of code 4s so that things that don't comply but don't directly affect safety of users of the installation shouldn't be raised any more, but we could refine the list a little, e.g.:
'Dangerous' (one or more C1s found)
'Unsatisfactory' (one or more C2s but no C1s) and
'Satisfactory' (no C1s or C2s).

- Andy.
 15 July 2016 08:09 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zoomup

Posts: 3265
Joined: 20 February 2014

Hello Leckie,
if the sticky label has a caveat printed on it, like a car's M.O.T. certificate, saying that the installation was compliant ON THE DAY OF THE TEST ONLY, that would cover the inspector's back. So any later D.I.Y. alterations or picture hanging nails through cables would not be included within the time period that the sticker covers.

Also, it should be a requirement to have a copy of the latest report available. One should be left hanging in a nice plastic envelope by the consumer unit for anyone to inspect. It's removal should be on pain of death

Z.
 15 July 2016 08:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mapj1

Posts: 9346
Joined: 22 July 2004

That aspect of any inspection I think has to be understood already, and personally I think the sticker is not the best place for it - but maybe there is something to take from road signs, if you must have graduations (though I'm uneasy, I agree that lethal and not very good need to be distinguished.)

Inspected and found to be Dangerous RED warning triangle, use your own risk, Repair and retest As soon as possible
Inspected and found to be Unsatisfactory AMBER rectangle, correct and retest by 3 month
Inspected and found to be Satisfactory GREEN Circle retest by 2030 or whatever

(and if you must, "a reflection of the installation on the day.., may not meet the latest version of BS7671, in the opinion of the inspector, best efforts, you may not get back the money you invest, may contain nuts" etc. )

-------------------------
regards Mike
 15 July 2016 08:44 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Thripster

Posts: 806
Joined: 22 August 2006

That sounds good to me Mike.
 15 July 2016 09:26 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



John Peckham

Posts: 8783
Joined: 23 April 2005

OMS

I have stopped wearing my underpants on the outside of my trousers as it is so difficult to find a telephone box nowadays!

The current label tells the user/occupier of the installation the day the installation was tested and the date of the next inspection which is fine. However I am finding strong evidence questioning non-electrical people that the presence of that label causes them to believe the installation is "safe" and does not need further inspection until the next inspection date, it unintentionally deceives.

I am not trying to introduce or define anymore outcome codes and I am not trying to change the definition of "unsatisfactory". The installation is "unsatisfactory" if it has attracted a C1,C2 or a FI.

My proposal is a label that indicates when the installation was tested and displays the outcome as being "unsatisfactory" directing the person to the EICR. Why deceive ordinary people even if it is unintentional , why not inform them and and let them know about the condition of the installation?

I know the electrical industry is opposed to any change on the basis it is change but surely a sticky label will not bring about the demise of mankind? Minus 10 points to anyone who says what about the cost of buying a different label.

My idea, like any good idea, is simple, cheap and effective but I would say that wouldn't I as I thought of it.

I am not sure if these electrical labels we use should not comply with the signs and symbols regulations but can we leave that aside for the moment.

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/
 15 July 2016 09:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22359
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: John Peckham

OMS

I have stopped wearing my underpants on the outside of my trousers as it is so difficult to find a telephone box nowadays!

LOL

The current label tells the user/occupier of the installation the day the installation was tested and the date of the next inspection which is fine.

and actually it allows the inspector to indicate a date of next inspection based on the findings of the inspection (and test) - for some conditions, we indicate an increasing frequency of test.

However I am finding strong evidence questioning non-electrical people that the presence of that label causes them to believe the installation is "safe" and does not need further inspection until the next inspection date, it unintentionally deceives.

Then that's an education issue, not a BS 7671 issue

I am not trying to introduce or define anymore outcome codes and I am not trying to change the definition of "unsatisfactory". The installation is "unsatisfactory" if it has attracted a C1,C2 or a FI.

Really, so having tested a large acute district hospital you want to put a sticker at or close to the site transformers and main switchgear that might suggest there is a code 2 somewhere ?

Or alternatively, you put to subdivide the installation into many installations and put stickers everywhere ?


My proposal is a label that indicates when the installation was tested and displays the outcome as being "unsatisfactory" directing the person to the EICR. Why deceive ordinary people even if it is unintentional , why not inform them and and let them know about the condition of the installation?

There is no deceit - just a lack of education at best, or an interpretation that suits the person at worst - as an example, your sister in law really should know better, she needs education as to what the purpose is (if she intends to act in any way regarding electrical safety (don't we constantly bang on about competent people)

I know the electrical industry is opposed to any change on the basis it is change but surely a sticky label will not bring about the demise of mankind? Minus 10 points to anyone who says what about the cost of buying a different label.

Not at all - what change has gone on in the last decade has been incredibly badly managed (at best) and has resulted in a revenue generation scheme for "bodies" that actually base this on a "safety ticket"

My idea, like any good idea, is simple, cheap and effective but I would say that wouldn't I as I thought of it.

Yes, you would

I am not sure if these electrical labels we use should not comply with the signs and symbols regulations but can we leave that aside for the moment.

Why would they comply - generally, they don't meet the definition


To clarify a few other points:

1 - If the regulations require change, then lets do that for the correct reasons - not to address failings or shortcomings that are already covered under all sorts of other legislation and guidance

2 -I still fail to understand why the electrical inspector either desires, or is being coerced into, accepting the role of duty holder (for non domestic installations)

3 - I genuinely believe the time has now come to separate BS 7671 from a set of simplified and representative regulations for domestic installations. I believe in a light touch and keeping government well away from the garden gate and that does tend towards where the industry is now in terms of "installers" and "electricians"

Personally, I've never considered "domestic" as below me, in fact I actually recognise that it brings a complete set of challenges and problems that don't exist in other sectors (as we have legislation to deal with that). Part P has pretty well failed, but actually, the concept was pretty good - basic simple rules for the generally single remaining sector that is unregulated.

I can see the value of having "different" labels for domestic installations (in the same way we have the metal clad DB nonsense for domestic premises), along with a whole host of things (refer to the SPD thread as an example).

Domestics are an installation type, that I really believe would benefit from a simpler approach based on "rules" rather than interpretation of regulations meant for entirely different situations (and interpreted correctly by competent persons)

Finally:

As Mike points out;

And anything graduated, like ' a little bit pregnant' is doomed to end badly - so no marks out of 94 and 2/3 please.


What is actually expected to be gained from this - that the EICR doesn't already say.

It probably has more value in the long term to lodge EICR's based on the address in the same way as EPC's etc (for the domestic sector) - but that needs a whole new way of thinking and brings us back to a simple set of rules for domestics. That way, persons who have an interest (mortgage lenders, Local Authority, etc) have no excuse " but we didn't understand" the next time everyone is outraged at the death of an occupant

And to give perspective - how many people died last year from electrical incidents resulting from fixed wiring - remind me again ?

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 15 July 2016 10:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ebee

Posts: 6338
Joined: 02 December 2004

Too many

-------------------------
Regards,
Ebee (M I S P N)

Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik
 15 July 2016 10:21 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ebee

Posts: 6338
Joined: 02 December 2004

Yes I agree with John.
I`ve always found it strange that the outcome is never on that label.
It does deceive the unwary.

For that matter how often have I remarked to a letting agent the next inspection due date has expired only to be told "No it`s 5 years for a domestic". I then ask them to explain what qualifications they have to overide the advise of their electrical inspector

-------------------------
Regards,
Ebee (M I S P N)

Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..