This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EICR code for a “Shall”.

Given that a Wiring Regulation containing the word “Shall” is not optional, but a definite requirement, can an existing installation that does not comply be coded 3-Improvement recommended rather than code 2-Potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required?


Andy B.
  • I'll use an example of 514.4.4, which is a "shall" requirement - 'Other conductors shall be identified by colour in accordance with Table 51.'


    So, I have an installation in which the blue switched lines (switch returns) on a lighting circuit have not been overmarked brown.


    Are you proposing C2 for that?
  • Quite, so just how obligatory is a “Shall”?


    Not very by the sound of it. Though I understand some people have tried to code your example as a 2.


    How much leeway is there?


    Andy B.


  • It is only a definitive requirement for new work. Periodic Inspection is not selection and erection.
  • So application can be as seen fit.
  • Shall is, however, still widely used in bureaucratic documents, especially documents written by lawyers. Owing to heavy misuse, its meaning can be ambiguous and the United States government's Plain Language group advises writers not to use the word at all.

    Wikipedia- Shall and will.
  • Graham's example is along the lines of what I would have chosen. Non compliance is not necessarily immediately dangerous. To give a slightly different example, if one neglects to affix a warning notice i.a.w. 514.14.1, how does that present any form of immediate danger?
  • Sparkingchip:

    Shall is, however, still widely used in bureaucratic documents, especially documents written by lawyers. Owing to heavy misuse, its meaning can be ambiguous and the United States government's Plain Language group advises writers not to use the word at all.

    Wikipedia- Shall and will.


    Whenever I have read or written requirements documents, "shall" has meant the same as "must" - it's a hard requirement.


    "Will" is a statement of intent, and not a requirement.


  • Agreed Simon Barker, but we are discussing the application of that in terms of the "coding" in BS 7671.


    This appears ONLY in Appendix 6 - which is "Informative" - i.e. "guidance", and definitely not "shall" ... which adds another level of complexity to the whole issue.
  • As would a Biblical reference to the Ten Commandments, where Shall or Shalt are set in stone.
  • Simon Barker:
    Sparkingchip:

    Shall is, however, still widely used in bureaucratic documents, especially documents written by lawyers. Owing to heavy misuse, its meaning can be ambiguous and the United States government's Plain Language group advises writers not to use the word at all.

    Wikipedia- Shall and will.


    Whenever I have read or written requirements documents, "shall" has meant the same as "must" - it's a hard requirement.


    "Will" is a statement of intent, and not a requirement.




    Interestingly, ESQCR 2002 has over a hundred instances of "shall". Some could be substituted with "will" e.g.

    1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 and shall come into force on 31st January 2003.


    Others could be substituted with "must" e.g.

    (4) A consumer shall not combine the neutral and protective functions in a single conductor in his consumer’s installation.