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

"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

"Owain" wrote in message
...
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.

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 :-)


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.

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

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


"Owain" wrote in message
...
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.

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 :-)

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

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.

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

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

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

"Lurch" wrote in message
...

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.

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

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

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.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:54:28 -0000, "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.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

In article ,
Anthony Bowles writes:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

No, the certificate is the result of the inspection.

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

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.

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?

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.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:06:07 +0000, Anthony Bowles
wrote:

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

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?

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"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

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"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.

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.


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.


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.


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.



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.

Mike wrote:


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

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.

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...

Owain wrote:

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



Owain





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


--
Real email address is RJSavage at BIGFOOT dot COM

The information contained in this post
may not be published in, or used by

http://www.diyprojects.info

"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

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:

snipped
were much more likely to be "permanently" mounted and functioning than
their BS-conformant lumps...


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

This check is best done whilst previous occupant is still there as you
check both the socket and any plug using it for overheating;

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

Christian.

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:


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

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.

I disagree, and fortunately the IEE do too.

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 ?

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 ?

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?

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
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 ?

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

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.

"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

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"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


That's what I like to hear :-)

Crumbs!

Google groups just managed to retrieve a thread!

WRT the OPs post.

Electrical inspection seem to be the in thing for surveyors/lendors to
ask for at the mo, (Though ours only recommended we have it done
rather than requiring it). When we bought a couple of houses back in
the 80s it was damp proofing/woodworm they wanted checks & assurances
on.

Why should the seller pay anything for bringing the installation up to
the latest regs? I certainly wouldn't, any more than i'd pay for the
purchaser to install new wallpaper or carpets. You've made an offer
to buy the house as it is, not as you might like to have it in the
future.

Also if a prospective purchasor was honest enough to tall me that they
wished to have an electrician take every bit of my installation apart
to check it over, i'd tell i'd be happy to have it done anytime after
completion! Such an inspection takes a long time (all day for a 3 bed
terrace) and is very disruptive if you are in (or in our case my wife
and young child were in).

Coming back to technicalities, if you go ahead and buy the house I
would propose having an electrician inspect it with a view to having a
split load consumer unit with RCD and MCBs fitted together with any
replacement fittings and/or new circuits.

This is just what we've had done at our place. Only downside is the
lighting mcbs tripping everytime a light bulb goes (and there's lots
of them to go).

You can get manage with one or two rings, but if you can easily
separate off the upper floor(s) if it isn't already, and or add a
separate ring for the kitchen then that would be good.



WRT the poster who complained that the whole house RCD was tripping
whenever a bulb blew, is this normal behavior for such an
installation? If so, is it just where earthed metal light fittings are
used? We used to have a whole house ELCB, but it didn't trip when
lights blew. I can't think that we've had an overcurrent fault on the
new system to know whether the new RCD would let go or not. I did
once tough a live wire on what I thought was an isolated socket, and
was a little disappointed that disconnected myself before the new RCD
did (Well, I was glad to have disconnected, but surprised the rcd
didn't trip).