Interesting EICR

[phil d]

@Phoenix Overall that is not a bad assumption, I just wished I had a better camera on my phone.

The C2 that I wanted people to spot was the immersion heater, I have seen people miss this on many EICR reports.

The 4293 if you noticed was a 63A 0.1A so its a 100mA RCD which is a current operated earth leakage RCD.

The insulation on the lighting was not disturbed at the light fittings but I concurred that the insulation had indeed broken down at all the light fittings due to 55 years of heat. Any light fittings changed would or could make the cable useless for future use. The socket circuit failed the max Zs for the breaker and as it is a 100mA RCD could not be trusted to operate within any time if in contact with any person.

As I say it is not a test, just a useful exercise. My main issues were with the reduced cpc of the cable, I am trying to find out if this was normal as in just after the war was the cpc reduced to save money? I am not sure but would like to find out. I am going back to the property and will take my verniers with me on the next visit to double check.

I think you're right over the cpc being reduced,I've heard it mentioned before plus I remember seeing a load of old rubber gear ripped out on a big job and several people commenting on the fact that the earth in the "6mm"  wasn't as thick as the earth in modern 6mm.same with the main bonding,I've seen places where it looked like 2.5 or whatever the imperial equivalent was.

 

[Rob_the_rich]

I edited my post #14 before, but would like to know what code would be given for an imm heater fed from a fused spur. We don't know the rating of the imm heater, it may well only be 2KW.

Don't do eicrs.

 

[Manator]

The only one I question is the immersion heater.

An EICR only tests parts you are able to examine without dismantling the building.  As you could not see the immersion heater, you made an assumption. How do you KNOW that last week someone hadn't opened up the space, fitted a new immersion and closed it up again.

While there is a strong suspicion it may not have a safety trip, as you can't actually see it, in my mind it can only be a FI "requires further investigation" or dare I say it a LIM?

Off to get my tin hat.

You are correct Dave, however the people are intending to let the property. The original plumber has orientated the immersion so it is easier for him to get his pipes on. The result is that the actual heater is on the rear of the tank. I have assumed that a thermal cut out is not fitted but based that on the actual age of the installation and the evidence that presented itself. A FI would easily have been ignored as would a C3.

I know people code very differently and to be honest I am well known for not giving C2's or C1's unless I think they really need it.

 

[ProDave]

You are correct Dave, however the people are intending to let the property. The original plumber has orientated the immersion so it is easier for him to get his pipes on. The result is that the actual heater is on the rear of the tank. I have assumed that a thermal cut out is not fitted but based that on the actual age of the installation and the evidence that presented itself. A FI would easily have been ignored as would a C3.

I know people code very differently and to be honest I am well known for not giving C2's or C1's unless I think they really need it.

I read your original description as you could not get access to the tank so could not even see where the heater might be or it's age or condition.

But now I understand you can see the tank and see where the immersion heater is, inaccessible behind the tank, so it is a fair conclusion that it won't have a safety cut out due to it's age, and the impossibility of ever servicing it.

Just goes to show the difference between what you actually saw, and the perception we have of what you saw from the description.

I had one a bit like that where we had to cut a hole in the plasterboard of an adjoining room to get at the immersion heater, and aniother with a top entry heater where although you could access the heater, to actually get it out to change it required cutting a hole in the ceiling as the tank was high up in the cupboard. Some plumbers are just mad.

 

[Sharpend]

I read your original description as you could not get access to the tank so could not even see where the heater might be or it's age or condition.

But now I understand you can see the tank and see where the immersion heater is, inaccessible behind the tank, so it is a fair conclusion that it won't have a safety cut out due to it's age, and the impossibility of ever servicing it.

Just goes to show the difference between what you actually saw, and the perception we have of what you saw from the description.

I had one a bit like that where we had to cut a hole in the plasterboard of an adjoining room to get at the immersion heater, and aniother with a top entry heater where although you could access the heater, to actually get it out to change it required cutting a hole in the ceiling as the tank was high up in the cupboard.

MOST plumbers are just mad.

Corrected that for you Dave! 

 

[binky]

there was a time when 2.5mm FTE had a 1mm CPC, so reduced CPC on older property is highly likely.

 

[kerching]

Plumbers......

https://www.youtube.com/embed/mViO9mnCTBo?feature=oembed

 

[Tony S]

Judging by that i reckon they have underestimated their time on site :slap

How long was the run? There’s a lot of prep work that can be done in the shop, pipe hangers to be run, etc. All of a sudden 50m of pipe appears as if by magic.

I will say I enjoyed doing pipework as part of a multi-skilled team.