PIR certificates - (Wiring regulations are complete & utter rubbish!!)

[Lightman]

Dear all

The new Housing Act (shortly to take effect in a few days) meant that I had to have two of my properties which are let as student houses (HMO's) have their fixed wiring tested (so that I can now pay the council a further =A3 600 per property to register as a landlord!!......something I have been doing since 1998 (with very satisfied tenants who never leave).............it's all bureaucratic nonsence really!!!)

I had NICEIC electricians inspect the wiring and issue PIR certificates

My perfectly safe and very new wiring (which I did myself 3 years ago) failed on one small point (in both houses). It failed as you .=2E...."need a protective device for each ring main circuit".

What I did is to put 2 small ring mains (two adjacent ground floor rooms) into one 32amp MCB. This meant there was 4 tails in one 32 Amp MCB. Each ring main is small and has 4 sockets and covers a very small area. (It was done as rooms were renovated one after another and was easier to wire like that. I combined some rooms on the ground floor as the house has about 15 rooms (so I didn't want 15 ring mains with

15MCB's!!!!!!!!).

The NICEIC electricians informed me that if (they) put a joint box behind the consumer unit (there is an access hatch) and make one larger ring main (with 8 sockets) it will then comply!!

What nonsence I say!! These wiring regulations would mean an increased the length of the total ring main, increase the impedance and would make it (slightly) less safe (not more!!). I really can't see that it makes any difference! If you use the MCB as a "joint" it is not allowed but "out of sight joint box " behind the consumer unit which doubles the length of the ring main makes it comply!!

Secondly they noted this as a "dangerous fail". I can't see how it could be any worse than "not up to current wiring regulations". I can possibly see that it is unsafe in any way as the MCB is 32 Amps which is fine for each individual ring

Interestingly enough, this seems to be allowed with the lighting circuits!!! It seems that one can shove in as many 1mm tails in those 6 Amp breakers as you like!!

Any comments from anybody?? I'm jolly interested to see what the group think!! ......and I especially want to hear from NICEIC electricians!!

Best regards - Lightman (now a qualified PAT tester with 96.666% in that stupid City & Guilds test which is also a bureacratic waste of time but saves on PAT testing fees!!!!)

[Frank Erskine]

Isn't there space in the CU for an additional MCB, so that you can actually have two separate rings? Even if you do combine a lighting circuit with, say, a bell transformer (or something like that!)...

[Owain]

There are two ways of looking at this:

1. Two circuits on one MCB, which isn't permitted.
2. A non-standard circuit, which is permitted if you can prove in your design calculations that it complies with all the regulations, and it still complies with the "good workmanship" provisions.

Perhaps NICEIC electricians aren't sufficiently imaginative to regard it as (2), or are just cautious about signing anything off that doesn't accord fully with The Big NICEIC Picture-Book of Wiring.

Yes, provided the joint is accessible.

An alternative would be to remove one end of each 'ringlet', drop the MCB to 20A and have a radial.

The difference is in the ring topology.

I think I agree with that. The issue would be if one 32A circuit was inadequate for the anticipated demand.

They're radials, not rings.

However, as you undoubtedly left plenty of room in the CU :-) you should have no difficulty adding a second MCB.

Owain

[John White]

Well you cannot really "fail" a PIR you can however get a report that advises that work needs to be done, or even describes the installation as "unsatisfactory". Ultimately it is up to you whether or not you carry out the suggested work. On the other hand if something dangerous was discovered during an inspection then a responsible electrician should either make it safe or disconnect the circuit concerned.

Of course if anything goes wrong and you were aware there were problems, then there could be serious consequences. Your Local Authority or insurance company will probably insist on a "clean" report where rented property is concerned anyway.

Well if you had fifteen ring circuits then you would normally put in fifteen MCBs to protect them. I agree however that it would a very large or unusual installation if it required so many ring circuits.

That said assuming your design calculations and circuit diagrams showed fifteen ring mains then there is no problem.

(You did show this documentation to the inspector, didn't you)

Speaking personally for a moment. If I encountered an installation designed as you describe then it would raise a few doubts in my mind as to the manner in which it had been designed and installed. I do not mean that I would automatically assume it to be faulty or unsafe, I would just expect to find a few unexpected "features" along the way. I would definitely ask to see the design documents and circuit diagrams, if any.

This sounds like they suggested turning the two small rings into one large one and avoiding any potential hazard. This sounds like a sensible solution.

Ah you disagree.

OK. Firstly the increased length and impedance would have to be within the parameters specified by the regulations. Given your description of the ring circuits to be combined, I doubt that this would have any noticeable effect on the safety of the circuit.

"Hiding" a junction box behind the consumer unit does not sound like a good idea. There would however probably be sufficient space inside the consumer unit to link the two rings with appropriately sized connectors.

Well there is a potential safety risk here, but it's a slight one. The four cables associated with this MCB might be seen as a ring and two spurs and tested accordingly. This would not pick up an open circuit on one of the rings. A slight risk as I said.

Had I tested this installation I would have noted the unusual design in the inspector's report. I don't think I would have flagged it as a safety issue, but without seeing the installation it's hard to make a judgment.

Certainly this would be something that an inspector would expect to see and then query on the circuit diagram.

Within reason. Again if you had an excessive number I would have put a comment in the inspector's report.

Well I'm an electrician who specialises in inspection and testing, and the above are my comments. I'm not however NICEIC registered.

Good man - You now just need to buy a PAT tester and all the other bits and pieces that go with it.

A tip: The HSE seem to be red-hot on asset registers and retest periods at the moment.

John

[John McLean]

The new Housing Act (shortly to take effect in a few days) meant that I had to have two of my properties which are let as student houses (HMO's) have their fixed wiring tested (so that I can now pay the council a further £ 600 per property to register as a landlord!!......something I have been doing since 1998 (with very satisfied tenants who never leave).............it's all bureaucratic nonsence really!!!)

This thread illustrates the problems that are likely to occur for Landlords and Sellers in the future; when there is clamp down on conformance to the regs and safe electrical installations. I suppose that there must be justification for this new act, there are a lot of shady landlords out there, from what I read. Part P is another case in point, I can't argue with the principle from the horrors that I've seen, the method: - Yes, (Licensed electricians would have been preferable IMO).

I had NICEIC electricians inspect the wiring and issue PIR certificates

This does not guarantee competence.

My perfectly safe and very new wiring (which I did myself 3 years ago) failed on one small point (in both houses). It failed as you ......"need a protective device for each ring main circuit".

These are now known as ring final circuits!, your NICEIC "inspector" should have known this.

What I did is to put 2 small ring mains (two adjacent ground floor rooms) into one 32amp MCB. This meant there was 4 tails in one 32 Amp MCB. Each ring main is small and has 4 sockets and covers a very small area. (It was done as rooms were renovated one after another and was easier to wire like that. I combined some rooms on the ground floor as the house has about 15 rooms (so I didn't want 15 ring mains with

15MCB's!!!!!!!!).

This is an example of the type of work that would be done by a DIY'r. It is a departure from the regs; but in this case not unsafe for the user.

The NICEIC electricians informed me that if (they) put a joint box behind the consumer unit (there is an access hatch) and make one larger ring main (with 8 sockets) it will then comply!!

There are other ways in skinning the cat, see below. "Rules are made for fools; and the interpretation of wise men".

What nonsence I say!! These wiring regulations would mean an increased the length of the total ring main, increase the impedance and would make it (slightly) less safe (not more!!). I really can't see that it makes any difference! If you use the MCB as a "joint" it is not allowed but "out of sight joint box " behind the consumer unit which doubles the length of the ring main makes it comply!!

Providing that the disconnection time of the 32 Amp MCB; and the other regulations regarding limit on the floor area etc. are met, I don't see a problem.

Secondly they noted this as a "dangerous fail". I can't see how it could be any worse than "not up to current wiring regulations". I can possibly see that it is unsafe in any way as the MCB is 32 Amps which is fine for each individual ring

I wouldn't consider it a dangerous fail, it is not strictly to the regulations; but there should be at least a comment on the circuit identification chart, at the distribution board, this "chart" is required to the regulations. Further, as the duty holder, I would then comment on this as a code 4 on the PIR: - "Does not comply with BS 7671: 2001 as amended. The users of the installation are not in any danger as a result of the discrepancy. Careful consideration should be given to the benefits of improving these aspects of the installation."

Interestingly enough, this seems to be allowed with the lighting circuits!!! It seems that one can shove in as many 1mm tails in those 6 Amp breakers as you like!!

Radial circuits as already mentioned elsewhere.

Any comments from anybody?? I'm jolly interested to see what the group think!! ......and I especially want to hear from NICEIC electricians!!

Why NICEIC electricians as opposed to ECA or NAPIT, or simply competent electricians?; the NICEIC don't write the regulations; they think they do. As an organisation they are not very user friendly; even though they are a charity organisation; I understand that anyone can phone their helpline, although there may be a long wait for an answer, I would bounce this off them. There are two categories of NICEIC electricians here, one is a Domestic Installer, who can't be registered by them to carry out PIR's, the other is the Approved Contractor who is registered. Which category applies here?, if the former; does he have at least C & G 2391 which applies to this category of work? What does this new housing act, stipulate for inspector competence/qualifications, in this regard? Note that PIR's don't fall under Part P of the building regulations, anyone can do them.

Best regards - Lightman (now a qualified PAT tester with 96.666% in that stupid City & Guilds test which is also a bureacratic waste of time but saves on PAT testing fees!!!!)

This is certainly not work for Von Braun, (try City & Guilds 2391, a bit more difficult; but again.......). Doesn't this PAT fee come under maintenance; which is allowed as a tax deduction?

BTW, there is no mention of an RCD; I assume this is installed.

Jaymack

[Andy Burns]

You need to configure your neewsreader (Outlook Express by the look of it) better, so that people can differentiate the original text you're replying to and your reply itself. When confronted with a solid block of text like your message without "> quoted" text, most people will simply ignore your message entirely :-(

[John McLean]

Apologies, Don't know what happened with my previous post. Blame it on that b*****r Gates. Jaymack.

[John Cartmell]

There are alternatives! ;-)

[Lightman]

Dear All

Thanks for the comprehensive replies and also glad that you cleared up that radial circuits are OK with more than one connection to an MCB. I have very large MK boards but like to spilit up lighting circuits etc so blowing bulbs don't take out whole floors.

I'm gald there was agreement that this MCB arrangement wasn't a code 1 risk "requires urgent attention, the safety of those using the installation may be at risk"

In one property we have spare ways and the NICEIC electricians will add an MCB and in the other property 2 joint boxes (which are accessable) will be added.

BTW, yes John, I do have a =A3 430 Seaward PAT testing machine and a Megger so now PAT test my own properties - after all this is UK DIY!!

Thanks - Lightman

[Andrew Gabriel]

Another tip: many companies which are stuffed full of IT equipment PAT test their IT equipment far too often, which is a waste of money (not just the PAT test fees, but even more so the disruption it can cause to the company operations). Such companies really should get one or two of their own staff trained in PAT testing even if they subcontract the activity, so they become aware of how to work out the necessary PAT testing intervals. For example, if you write off and dispose of desktop PC systems in less than 4 years, in many cases they won't ever need any testing (depending how they're used), but probably just one visual inspection check halfway through their lives.

[dennis]

Isn't it usually the insurance costs that make yearly PAT testing worthwhile?

[Owain]

Any company that writes off desktop PC systems after 4 years is already wasting huge amounts of money and probably contributing to landfill, and has obviously never heard of thin client computing.

Owain

[John Cartmell]

I'm seriously thinking of relegating my 10-year old RiscPC to be my number 2 computer - but I'll probably keep it as my main news/mail machine. Less than 5 years is quite silly - unless you need to run the latest games ...

.. or is that why cmpanies are persuaded to 'upgrade'?

[Andrew Gabriel]

Oh, I agree (having worked for a thin client manufacturer, where we made very heavy use of them internally, obviously). However, most companies have no idea what a thin client is, very sadly. When you get someone visiting who's never seen beyond Windows desktop deployments, and they see how you can work with thin clients (SunRays in my case), they are always completely gobsmacked.

[Christian McArdle]

I'm not sure that C++ programming will be too fun on a thin client. Besides I'd rather eat turd than use most thin client applications. Latency of less than 0.1s is really needed or I fall asleep waiting. OK for the plebs, I suppose, like public transport...

Christian.

[Owain]

Check out NX protocol / NoMachine. Compresses and encrypts the X so it will work tolerably over a GSM modem and acceptably over broadband.

Owain

[John White]

Very good. I think you will find that it will be a lot more convenient to do this in-house anyway. Mind you I'm always pleasantly surprised when firms pay the minimum charge for me to come and just test a single appliance.

John

[John White]

Yes. A lot of equipment requires only one formal test, supplemented by regular user checks, for the life of the equipment.

Yes. Some insurance companies or local authorities insist on annual inspection. I even know of one company who insists on a PIR and PAT test on change of tenant, even if the let was just for a few weeks. Surely this is going too far.

On the other hand I need the money :-)

John

[<me9]

That's exactly what I did, as I recognised some of it, and there was no obvious quoted text

[Andrew Gabriel]

I think you misunderstand a thin client. C++ programming will completely impossible on a thin client, just like it's impossible on an LCD monitor. Of course, in either case it's possible on the associated computer (and in the case of a thin client, the computer can easily be a 64 processor system, giving you vastly more power than you can get in any desktop).

What's a thin client application?

Thin clients achieve latencies much less that that.