IEE Wiring Inspection

[Anthony Bowles]

Seeing as it's going to be a couple of days before we decide on a number of things I thought I'd pick everyones brains here.

We've just had a survey done on a house we're buying (that was built in

1975) and one of the things that the mortgage company has insisted we get done within the first 3 months is a wiring inspection + any work necessary to bring it up to IEE standards.

Now apart from the fact that they will never check anyway (we have been told) we'll want to come to some agreement with the seller for any extra costs and the best option is to pay for at least an inspection now before we go any further.

What is typically the going rate that this inspection would cost? I believe the certificate is an additional cost too?

And under normal circumstances would a house of that age meet current standards. One of the things that we did notice was that all the sockets and switches seem to be originals (they were of that style and greatly discoloured) which we'd already said we would replace if we got the house anyway. Would they need replacing even if we weren't going to?

Thanks

Anth

[Owain]

"Anthony Bowles" wrote | We've just had a survey done on a house we're buying (that was | built in 1975) and one of the things that the mortgage company | has insisted we get done within the first 3 months is a wiring | inspection + any work necessary to bring it up to IEE standards.

It is often difficult to bring an existing installation up to current IEE standards without fairly comprehensive rewiring. What will probably satisfy your mortgage co is a "Periodic Inspection and Test" report which will test whether the wiring is basically safe and not an imminent risk to life and property. This will probably throw up a requirement for earth bonding to be improved, but not much else.

| And under normal circumstances would a house of that age meet | current standards.

1975 - PVC cabling should be okay, but it may have unsheathed or green-sheathed earths, which must be updated to green-and-yellow to comply with current standards. The consumer unit is quite likely to have rewirable fuses, but cables need derating for use with r/w - especially the ring circuits are likely to be touch and go as regards achieving 20A rating of the cable at all points on the circuit - so replacing with MCBs will probably be required. Any RCD provided is likely to be whole-house, which does not comply, so replacement of the CU with a modern split-load one would be the obvious solution. If the house does not have RCD, this would have to be fitted for all sockets likely to be used for portable appliances outdoors (in practice, all ground- floor sockets). Earth bonding will also have to be brought up to standard.

More seriously, the Regs require circuit provision to be adequate for its intended use. A 1975 house probably only has 1 ring circuit, with comparatively few sockets. To strictly comply with current Regs would require rewiring, with 2 or 3 rings, separate kitchen circuit, etc.

Owain

[Mike]

I do hope some inspection isn't going to be as silly as worrying about what colour insulation an earth wire has round it. We all know how fussy those electrons are about being dressed in last year's colours :-)

Why is that ? I'm sure I've seen small houses still using a single one.

[Lurch]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:32:39 -0000, "Mike" strung together this:

I would tend to agree, but the IEE can be a bunch of fuckwits at times.

Safety, mainly. Stops people falling down the stairs when the RCD goes pop in the dark.

[Mike]

Agree on reason. But is it actually in the regs ? I'm sure there's a lot of non-compliant new stuff around if it is.

[Lurch]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:54:28 -0000, "Mike" strung together this:

Somewhere, but it's not a definitive quote as usual. The compliance with a regulation that requires something is interpreted as using a split-load CU, there are other interpretations.

[Andrew Gabriel]

That's rather unreasonable in my view. The requirement should be to make it safe. Properties are not required to track changes in the wiring regs for their existing wiring. Was there some reason for this condition being imposed, such as the surveyor making some negative comment about the wiring? If not, I would point out the unreasonablenes to the building society and have the condition wording appropriately changed.

If you're going to do it at all, get the inspection done before you go any further -- there's no point waiting, and it is effectively part of the survey process. Then you will have some idea what if any costs are involved.

No, the certificate is the result of the inspection.

It won't meet all the 16th Edition regs, as it will have been wired to 14th Edition regs IIRC. If it was done correctly at the time and has not been compromised since, it's very unlikely to be unsafe. A list of deviations from the 16th Edition could be reviewed for any which should be done for safety.

You should inspect them all. Any discoloured due to overheating should be replaced. This check is best done whilst previous occupant is still there as you check both the socket and any plug using it for overheating; after they moved out you can't check their plugs.

[Peter Parry]

Of course not. In the last 30 years the standards have changed many times. If every house had to be kept up to date with current standards the only happy people would be electricians.

When you come to sell it in a few years time all the electrical wiring will be the "wrong" colour. Will you change it all?

[Owain]

"Lurch" wrote | "Mike" strung together this: | >Agree on reason. But is it actually in the regs ? I'm sure there's a lot | >of non-compliant new stuff around if it is. | Somewhere, but it's not a definitive quote as usual. The compliance | with a regulation that requires something is interpreted as using a | split-load CU, there are other interpretations.

I have suggested that a whole-house RCD contravenes the following regs:

130-01-01 Good workmanship and materials shall be used.

130-02-01 All equipment shall be ...installed .. so as to prevent danger as far as is reasonably practicable.

314-01-01 Every installation shall be divided into circuits as necessary to: (i) avoid danger in the event of a fault, and (ii) facilitate safe operation, testing and maintenance.

314-01-02 A separate circuit shall be provided for each part of the installation which needs to be separately controlled for compliance with the Regulations *or otherwise* to prevent danger, so that such circuits remain energised in the event of failure of any other circuit of the installation, and *due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device*.

from and copyright IEE Wiring Regulations Sixteenth Edition 1991. [* my emphasis *]

The above taken in conjunction with Peter Parry's comments on the number of deaths through falls possibly linked to sudden loss of light on staircases suggests to me that a whole-house RCD is not only in breach of the Regs, but incompetent verging on negligent (unless there are other provisions eg emergency lighting).

Owain

[Mike]

I'm afraid this is far too vague and open to interpretation. Regulations should not be written in terms like this. After all what constitutes "Good workmanship and materials" to me, you or a Greek (no offense meant - arbitary nationality picked out of the air) electrician are probably totally different.

Again vague but see where you are going.

Argument here could be whether an MCD or an RCD constitutes a circuit.

installation,

Now this is far clearer. Though bear in mind it could be taken to mean you need an individual RCB on every circuit.

Can't agree with this. Didn't see the post you mean but every set of stairs should have at least a torch at the top in case of powercuts. Far more regular than a RCD tripping round here.

[Stefek Zaba]

I disagree, and fortunately the IEE do too.

While some countries - the US particularly - write extremely detailed 'codes' in an effort to deskill the design of electrical installations, and p'raps in response to the legal climate where sueing is practically sacramental - the UK approach in most areas is full of works like 'reasonable', 'good practice', and so on. This allows the actual practice to evolve in line with availability of new materials and techniques, avoiding the silly situation where improvements can't be used because they're not 'to code'.

Of course, there are frustrating exceptions: bicycle lights is one such, where the law requires conformance to a picky, irrelevant, rarely-revised British Standard, which for ever such a long time made LED rear lights 'illegal' (in the sense of not meeting requirements), even though the hugely better battery life and lighter weight meant they were much more likely to be "permanently" mounted and functioning than their BS-conformant lumps...

[Richard]

An RCD had been added between CU (supplying every circuit) and meter in our place by the previous owners. Poxy blasted nuisance which plunged the whole place into darkness at every bulb failure, made even more disagreeable due to the absence of street lighting. We now have two CUs

- one fed from the RCD - supplying ring mains etc, the other (without RCD) supplying lighting, fridge/freezer circuits and garage (with its own little CU and RCD). No more episodes of toe stubbing induced by Stygian darkness.

Richard

[Owain]

"Mike" wrote | > 130-01-01 Good workmanship and materials shall be used. | I'm afraid this is far too vague and open to interpretation.

See Stefek's reply.

| > 130-02-01 All equipment shall be ...installed .. so as to prevent | > danger as far as is reasonably practicable. | Again vague but see where you are going.

I think it's fairly clear that an installation (or its manner of installation) must be considered with overall safety in mind, not just electrical safety.

| > 314-01-01 Every installation shall be divided into circuits as | > necessary to: | > (i) avoid danger in the event of a fault, and (ii) facilitate safe | > operation, testing and maintenance. | Argument here could be whether an MCD or an RCD constitutes a circuit.

From this point of view, if the RCD trips then everything downstream of it is on the same circuit, even if there are MCB'd sub / branch circuits.

| > 314-01-02 A separate circuit shall be provided for each part of the | > installation which needs to be separately controlled for compliance | > with the Regulations *or otherwise* to prevent danger, so that such | > circuits remain energised in the event of failure of any other circuit | > of the installation, and *due account shall be taken of the consequences | > of the operation of any single protective device*. | Now this is far clearer. Though bear in mind it could be taken to mean you | need an individual RCB on every circuit.

I think it could, especially for a TT installation where the alternative is usually a 100mA RCD main switch, which would take out all the lighting circuits if there was a fault on one. On a commercial or high-risk installation it would be reasonable to specify RCBO on all circuits.

The Reg only requires account to be taken of the of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device, not the *liklihood* of its operation, however, and it should be that the 100mA RCD main switch is not subjected to nuisance tripping - such circuits should be on RCBOs or split-load with adequate discrimination.

On PME installations lighting circuits would not normally be RCD'd at all.

| > The above taken in conjunction with Peter Parry's comments on the number | > of deaths through falls possibly linked to sudden loss of light on staircases | > suggests to me that a whole-house RCD is not only in breach of the Regs, | > but incompetent verging on negligent (unless there are other provisions | > eg emergency lighting). | Can't agree with this. Didn't see the post you mean but every set of stairs | should have at least a torch at the top in case of powercuts. Far more | regular than a RCD tripping round here.

And once person A has taken the torch downstairs, what is person B to do?

Also, a torch does not address the problem of what happens when the lights go off whilst someone is mid-step on the staircase. The installation is to be installed "so as to prevent danger" and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that a Design Certificate should be signed off 'provided a torch is kept at the top of the stairs'.

If frequent power cuts occur then emergency (and possibly standby) lighting should be installed as an integral part of the overall electrical installation.

Owain

[BigWallop]

Gone are the days when BS meant British Standard. Americanisms are still slowly creeping in, everywhere.

[Christian McArdle]

But not too long before, or their old manky plugs will cause the replacement sockets to smoulder, too.

Christian.

[Mike]

Regulations

Okay - I'll go in the other direction. Any German electrician would regard an IEE compliant installation with it's reliance on diversity as a dangerous hitch-potch and definitely failing on "good workmanship".

Who's right ?

[Stefek Zaba]

Dealing with "workmanship" first, it's a non-issue: "workmanship" refers to the minutiae of the physical installation - no stray strands (yes, a German electricial would've bootlace-ferruled everything in sight anyway ;-), covers put on neatly, visible runs made straight, wiring routing within accessories nice and clear, especially where there are lots of wires such as in a CU, and all those other little signs of care and competence.

Diversity is a design, rather than a workmanship issue.

Who's right? Well, I'd look to see how many fires, insulation embrittlements, and other signs of overloading result in the UK from application of diversity. I'm not aware of it being a major - or even minor - issue in HSE reports, RoSPA propaganda, or similar; so it seems to me in the context of the rest of the UK approach to wiring to be thoroughly defensible. It's not as if the UK approach doesn't have fusing to prevent gross overloading, nor as if an installer who misapplies diversity in an installation design won't be held liable for the consequence of such a misapplication. I'd no more bother arguing the deeper principle of it with a determined German electrician than I'd try to talk boilers with IMM, mind ;-) If I *were* feeling argumentative, I'd enquire how far back in the distribution chain the German regulatory approach carries sizing-for-peak rather than reasonably-anticipatable load - do their local substations expect to meet the rated demand of every house they feed, Just In Case all the good citizens of Suburbsburg turn on their pressure-washers, showers, cookers, kettles, washmishen und doshwishen und PCen at once?

[Mike]

It's not. But neither are a hundred other things. And that's my point. The regulations have got far too convoluted for their own good and the way they are currently evolving we will be at a parallel of the German situation before we know it. The regs need a good clear-out down to the basic issues needed for safety and that is all that should be in them.

Which is probably what the Greek electrican would implement off his own back.

[Owain]

"Mike" wrote | Okay - I'll go in the other direction. Any German electrician would | regard an IEE compliant installation with it's reliance on diversity | as a dangerous hitch-potch and definitely failing on "good | workmanship". | Who's right ?

We are. We won the war. :-)

Owain

[Mike]

That's what I like to hear :-)