My first EICR

[Steve3948]

Extract from ESC, which does state Code 3 if its unlikely that sockets will supply equipment outdoors, and Code 2 if its likely.

Grey area, as mentioned above, depends a lot on other factors.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Its simpleCode 1 Danger present

Code 2 Potentially dangerous

Code 3 Improvement recommended

We use the latest edition of BS 7671 to help us to produce a report on the condition of the installation. You need to understand the principles to produce that report, unfortunately many dont.

As for RCD protection for sockets where equipment may be used outside, well the old Code 2 could be a satisfactory or unsatisfactory hence the confusion, in my opinion a unsatisfactory code 2.

In my opinion it's a new Code 2.

It could be argued that in previous editions of the regulations there wasn't the abundance of electrical equipment for outside use, previous editions have acknowledged areas of increased risk and have implemented measures to reduce that risk.

Outside is a increased risk, how would you code a bathroom with no supplementary bonding in place to limit the touch voltage?

The risk is there, if someone dies and your report states a code 3, how do you think you will stand in court, based on the amount of equipment used outdoors now, i don't see previous editions saving your bacon, its potentially dangerous, report it to be the case.

Its now bonding or Rcd protection to a bathroom to limit the touch voltage.

I agree with your points here, but many don't claiming as its an old installation it doesn't matter.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was made at 20:34 ----------

Agreed but is it potentially dangerous(which is code 2). Sometimes more than others. Just take a judgement on its potential use. Ive heard electricians say for example that "it needs RCD protection because an extension lead could potentially be put through an upstairs window to power say a car battery charger in the carpark"Thats just nonsense

A few years ago (in the 16th edition time ) we rewired a first floor flat in a Victorian house conversion. Only the one door (the front one) to this flat. I fitted a Rcd socket next to the front door. Near to the end of the job i asked the elderly lady owner why she had plugged an Rcd adapter plug into a kitchen socket near the window (remember its the 1st floor), she replied " Its where i plug the lawn mower in when i am cutting the neighbors lawn, it said i should use one in the instructions"

 

[Steve3948]

I think all appliances for outdoor use carry instructions that an RCD safety device should be used.

Like my post above said I have been to many properties where they have full RCD protection at fuseboard and still use individual ones on appliances.

 

[Manator]

It would appear that a lot of us are getting confused when coding for any EICR (PIR).

To be honest I cannot blame you, I have used the words

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

I think all appliances for outdoor use carry instructions that an RCD safety device should be used.Like my post above said I have been to many properties where they have full RCD protection at fuseboard and still use individual ones on appliances.

I was showing an example ( also Manator with the caravan) that who knows what & where people plug in things. Manators story reminded me of a friend who lived in a council block on the 4th floor and rented a garage below. He had a 1.5mm csa extension lead out the window to the garage for 5 years doing welding mainly. He knew he could not wind the Amperage up high & turned the heater, kettle and un-needed lights off when welding. He finally bought his own place and built a triple garage/workshop that i had to wire in a 25mm Swa feed due to all the equipment he now uses.

 

[apprentice87]

Hi all,

I cannot for the life of me understand what all the fuss is about......

How is it that an awful lot of folk that are supposed to be qualified electricians cannot get their head round the idea that the regs are not retrospective....

It is not a question of do you personally think that things could be bettered, yes they could, but you are not testing, APART FROM ON THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH CAME OUT, that an installation complies with this standard, you are asked to use you judgement as to whether there are dangerous faults...

How hard can this be to understand??????

If you were an MOT tester, you would have regular visits where VOSA would watch you do a test. If you failed a vehicle from 1950 because "it did not meet the latest standards" that would be the last MOT you ever did.....

How hard can it be to understand this????

john

 

[Nicky Tesla]

Calm Down, Calm Down

Ok there is a house with no RCD protection at all were the installation was done in say 1999. What codes would you put down?

Next door is a house with no RCD protection but the installation was only done 3years ago. What codes would you put down?

 

[Steve3948]

Calm Down, Calm DownOk there is a house with no RCD protection at all were the installation was done in say 1999. What codes would you put down?

Next door is a house with no RCD protection but the installation was only done 3years ago. What codes would you put down?

Code 1 Danger present

Code 2 Potentially dangerous

Code 3 Improvement recommended

You decide :C

 

[Nicky Tesla]

Corrrrrrm on down..... You decide.......Whats in the box? is it code1 code2 or code3......if its right you get todays Bully prize!!

A SPEEDBOAT

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Hi all,I cannot for the life of me understand what all the fuss is about......

How is it that an awful lot of folk that are supposed to be qualified electricians cannot get their head round the idea that the regs are not retrospective....

It is not a question of do you personally think that things could be bettered, yes they could, but you are not testing, APART FROM ON THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH CAME OUT, that an installation complies with this standard, you are asked to use you judgement as to whether there are dangerous faults...

How hard can this be to understand??????

If you were an MOT tester, you would have regular visits where VOSA would watch you do a test. If you failed a vehicle from 1950 because "it did not meet the latest standards" that would be the last MOT you ever did.....

How hard can it be to understand this????

john

Yes, the regulations are not retrospective but we have to test & inspect TO TODAYS REGULATIONS, there is the contradiction .Unlike an MOT, that has exact dates for items and strict pass or fail if the items are missing or not correct. As an example cars had to have front seat belts fitted from 1/1/65 & also rear seat belts from 1/1/73. If older cars do have belts then they have to be correct but otherwise exempt.

But we have to look at, lets say a 1960's bathroom that has no bonding or Rcds. It does not meet todays regulations. So you may give that a Code 3. But what if you know it was rewired last week, still a code 3 ? its not less or more dangerous just because of when it was installed.

How about a 30A final ring circuit wired in pvc twin & earth 1.5mm. Its been operational since 1963 and shows no sign of overheating damage. That did not meet the regs when installed but code it C1, 2 or 3 ? What if it was installed yesterday ?

In my experience 85%+ of jobs can not be accurately dated ( no paperwork)so i tend to tread carefully, but always fully explain the options.

Although the NICEIC always get a bashing, they have said to me, both when chatting in person and calling the tech line, if you code an item a C3 (or old 4) will it ever get repaired & would you be worried you have passed it even though it may just scrape through the regs ?

 

[apprentice87]

Hi all,

Yes, i know what you are saying, and it IS a difficult area filled with contradictions, but an EICR inspection is a LOT different from initial verification, when you ARE looking to see that all complies with the current regs.

With an EICR i would contend that you are looking for signs of deterioration and damage, and that it was correctly installed in the first place.

The "model" forms state "The inspection and testing detailed in this report and accompanying schedules have been carried out in accordance with BS 7671: 2008 (IET Wiring Regulations) as amended to"...

I would contend that this means that the testing has been carried out as required by the bit of the regs concerning periodic testing, [which is completely different from initial verification] which is concerned with seeing that a NEW installation complies with the current regs.

For a start off, on an EICR you can have "sampling" and also "limitations" which you cannot have on an initial verification. Obviously you cannot knock half the building down to inspect concealed items, and there are times when you cannot do tests required in an initial verification purely because you cannot turn the power off!!

The model forms go on to state;

"This Report should only be used for reporting on the condition of an existing electrical installation. An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded"

Soooooo, the bit i highlighted in blue above, pretty much rules out C1 and C2 for no rcd, in an installation designed before these things were required, so i would give it a C3 improvement recommended...

What say you all??

P.S. Sorry if i sounded a bit rude in my earlier post, i was in a rush and typed it out at full speed!!! Reading it again, it does sound a bit, well, i suppose the word i was going to use would be blocked, but not very polite or constructive!!!!!!

Sorry all!!

john...

 

[park1]

Hi all,Yes, i know what you are saying, and it IS a difficult area filled with contradictions, but an EICR inspection is a LOT different from initial verification, when you ARE looking to see that all complies with the current regs.

With an EICR i would contend that you are looking for signs of deterioration and damage, and that it was correctly installed in the first place.

The "model" forms state "The inspection and testing detailed in this report and accompanying schedules have been carried out in accordance with BS 7671: 2008 (IET Wiring Regulations) as amended to"...

I would contend that this means that the testing has been carried out as required by the bit of the regs concerning periodic testing, [which is completely different from initial verification] which is concerned with seeing that a NEW installation complies with the current regs.

For a start off, on an EICR you can have "sampling" and also "limitations" which you cannot have on an initial verification. Obviously you cannot knock half the building down to inspect concealed items, and there are times when you cannot do tests required in an initial verification purely because you cannot turn the power off!!

The model forms go on to state;

"This Report should only be used for reporting on the condition of an existing electrical installation. An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded"

Soooooo, the bit i highlighted in blue above, pretty much rules out C1 and C2 for no rcd, in an installation designed before these things were required, so i would give it a C3 improvement recommended...

What say you all??

P.S. Sorry if i sounded a bit rude in my earlier post, i was in a rush and typed it out at full speed!!! Reading it again, it does sound a bit, well, i suppose the word i was going to use would be blocked, but not very polite or constructive!!!!!!

Sorry all!!

john...

Hi John, how would you code an Electrical installation with no Main Protective Bonding, could you also please explain you reasoning, cheers.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was made at 09:44 ----------

The question is open to everyone

 

[Steve3948]

Code 2 Potentially dangerous, its not Code 1 Danger present, as it's not present "Yet"

 

[park1]

Code 2 Potentially dangerous, its not Code 1 Danger present, as it's not present "Yet"

And the reasoning for you Code, as detailed as possible. Thanks Steve

 

[Steve3948]

So everything is at the same potential as the electrical earth, not better not worse.

 

[apprentice87]

Hi $park,

I would code it depending on the age and type of the installation. If i knew that it was installed since the sixteenth or seventeenth came out, [when bonding was required] in the case of say, a one foot high capped off gas pipe stuck in a corner somewhere, i would give it a C2 as it is liable to give rise to POTENTIAL danger [even if it is a bit unlikely that someone will come into contact with it]

If on the other hand there were extraneous parts that it was reasonably foreseeable that someone would actually come into contact with, at the same time as exposed conductive ones, say this gas pipe fed copper piping running round a premises, i would give it a C1 "danger present" as after all, danger IS present, a fault could occur at anytime.

If it was an ancient installation, say something installed back in the 60's 70's or even the 80's as i know nothing as to what was in the regs in those days, i would do what any sensible person would do, and inquire as to what WAS actually specified, with someone equally ancient....

If it turned out that, for all i know, no bonding was required, then the most i would give it would be a C3 as, like i said, the regs are not retrospective.

YES, you are testing to the requirements of the current regs, and yes, any NEW work you installed would have to comply with the current regs, but as the regs THEMSELVES say,

"An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, [which i would interpret as meaning the "old" regs] which may give rise to danger, should be recorded"

I might be completely wrong in all this, but that is what i would do!!!!!

john...

 

[Sidewinder]

Easy way to understand C1 & C2, not open to discussion as I am fed up with being slated by members who seem to have limited understanding of the topics under discussion.

C1 a single fault can kill, i.e. exposed live parts.

C2 requires 2 faults to kill, e.g. an earth fault and no bonding resulting in an extraneous part becoming live, thus contact with this could kill.

 

[Steve3948]

Easy way to understand C1 & C2, not open to discussion as I am fed up with being slated by members who seem to have limited understanding of the topics under discussion.C1 a single fault can kill, i.e. exposed live parts.

C2 requires 2 faults to kill, e.g. an earth fault and no bonding resulting in an extraneous part becoming live, thus contact with this could kill.

+100% :Salute

 

[steptoe]

^ thats my simplified take on something if I am wavering as to what code I should use.

 

[apprentice87]

Thanks Paul,

All is much clearer and simplified now!!!!!

Great stuff!!!

john..