Need a regulation no.

[Sidewinder]

I still want to know what your obsession is with coding something you can't see but just suspect might be wrong when normally hidden cables are excluded from an EICR?

It almost sounds as if you are searching for a reason to fail it?

This is the thing, I can't tell where the cables go, there is a perfectly good cpc within the cable, yet it's not used, why?

Damaged on install?

Muppet installer who could not decide if the cpc in the flat twin/cpc was adequate?

My issue is that there is divided responsibility for the install, my client is responsible for the cable, but not the building it's in & has no control over the building it's in.

So I want to protect my client.

I want to be sure that it is safe and that any muppets working in the building cannot have any reason to "endanger" my client.

I'm not looking for a reason to fail it, I am looking to prove that it is right, or wrong.

I just need to be sure that the ambulance chasers can't cost my client any money.

 

[ProDave]

Note it as a C3, you have brought it to their attention.  Then if they want to pay you to take the building apart to check it then that's up to them.

 

[Essex1]

On a similar note, a question i have asked here before with no answers, When inspecting a lighting final circuit wired in twin only (no cpc)  but all switches, lights etc  are class 2  but the circuit has been extended in several places with  twin & earth should this be mentioned/coded . The earth is floating.

C3 for not having a cpc at all termination points. 

This is the thing, I can't tell where the cables go, there is a perfectly good cpc within the cable, yet it's not used, why?

Damaged on install?

Muppet installer who could not decide if the cpc in the flat twin/cpc was adequate?

My issue is that there is divided responsibility for the install, my client is responsible for the cable, but not the building it's in & has no control over the building it's in.

So I want to protect my client.

I want to be sure that it is safe and that any muppets working in the building cannot have any reason to "endanger" my client.

I'm not looking for a reason to fail it, I am looking to prove that it is right, or wrong.

I just need to be sure that the ambulance chasers can't cost my client any money.

I am with PD here. You cannot judge an installation on what you cannot see. At the very most it would be further investigation. Even that is pushing it. 

The sub-main tests fine. In reality this cut off cpc is going to do zero harm to anyone. 

No code for me. 

 

[Sidewinder]

Note it as a C3, you have brought it to their attention.  Then if they want to pay you to take the building apart to check it then that's up to them.

The issue is my client is responsible for having installed the cable, but, they have no records from the install time.

So, OK, C3, next week, someone gets a shock because they drill into the wall where the cable is, and my client is all of a sudden responsible in more than one way for this persons life, keeping them alive and for the reason that they have to try to keep them alive.

 

[NozSpark]

What do you need this for??

Are you doing a report or an EICR?

Is this for one of your medical jobs? maybe the installer thought that it needed a larger CPC to comply?? but why the hell he didn't put the extra one in as an additional one to the CPC is beyond me

Could you not just tease out 10mm of the CPC and extend it??

 

[Sidewinder]

C3 for not having a cpc at all termination points. 

I am with PD here. You cannot judge an installation on what you cannot see. At the very most it would be further investigation. Even that is pushing it. 

The sub-main tests fine. In reality this cut off cpc is going to do zero harm to anyone. 

No code for me. 

It's not the cut off cpc that worries me, it's the cable route that my client is responsible for having installed and has no records of whether the cpc goes with the live cable or not.

 

[Essex1]

It's not the cut off cpc that worries me, it's the cable route that my client is responsible for having installed and has no records of whether the cpc goes with the live cable or not.

In the places you can see it it is satisfactory. You have no reason to think it is not like that elsewhere. Chances are the cables were pulled in together so still no code for me. 

 

[Sidewinder]

What do you need this for??

Are you doing a report or an EICR?

Is this for one of your medical jobs? maybe the installer thought that it needed a larger CPC to comply?? but why the hell he didn't put the extra one in as an additional one to the CPC is beyond me

Could you not just tease out 10mm of the CPC and extend it??

Close but no Cuban cigar Noz

It's an EICR.

I can't, do, anything, without regs to back the decisions, not even try to extend what is there.

Now I have a reg we can put it to them and discuss what can be done.

The decision lie with the client.

They need guidance as their expertise in this has left the organisation.

I have to be careful not to be shown to be generating work, but, they "need" things to be minimal risk to them financially and legally.

They are a very exposed organisation if something were to go wrong.

In the places you can see it it is satisfactory. You have no reason to think it is not like that elsewhere. Chances are the cables were pulled in together so still no code for me. 

Essex, I'm not having a go, I promise.

Would you sign this off on an EIC, if your guys had done it, and could not tell you how it was run?

 

[NozSpark]

I'm with Essex on this... If they were installed at the same time then surely they follow the same route 

..and you cannot comment on what you cannot see

 

[Rob_the_rich]

to cover your client's back, re-connect the cpc?

Edit; oops, missed a few posts

 

[Essex1]

Close but no Cuban cigar Noz

It's an EICR.

I can't, do, anything, without regs to back the decisions, not even try to extend what is there.

Now I have a reg we can put it to them and discuss what can be done.

The decision lie with the client.

They need guidance as their expertise in this has left the organisation.

I have to be careful not to be shown to be generating work, but, they "need" things to be minimal risk to them financially and legally.

They are a very exposed organisation if something were to go wrong.

Essex, I'm not having a go, I promise.

Would you sign this off on an EIC, if your guys had done it, and could not tell you how it was run?

Of course not mate. But you are not there to do an EIC. 

 

[Sidewinder]

I'm with Essex on this... If they were installed at the same time then surely they follow the same route 

..and you cannot comment on what you cannot see

I can see what you are saying Noz, but, my responsibility is to my client.

They are responsible for having installed the cable, but did not do it themselves, they are still responsible for the cable, they have never been responsible for the property that this cable is installed within.

I am tasked by them with risk minimisation.

There is an uncontrolled and unquantifiable risk here.

Did the installer pull the cables in together or not.

If "he" did fine, if he didn't there is a risk, that could be fatal.

There are no records, so no-one knows.

I know the install company and they are an registered with a scam, but I have seen and heard of loads of bad stuff about their work elsewhere.

 

[kerching]

Im Stil on VSB - Is that online stiff still a load of rubbish then ?

This one of the main issues with it.......you have to know EXACTLY what you are  searching for in order to search for it. Ipso facto you dont need to search for it. The search facility is almost non existent 

 

[Essex1]

It sounds as if you have an alternative motive here. It is not your responsibility to police previous installs. You are employed to tell your client the current state of their installation. Not protect them. If they want to further employ you as a consultant then that is different. In this thread you are stating that you are there to do an EICR. Carry that out and get paid. 

 

[Sidewinder]

Of course not mate. But you are not there to do an EIC. 

See Essex (I won't use your name even though I feel that I should, and it feels rude not to, we've been there, let's stick with our forum names eh!), I see where you are coming from.

I am struggling to explain why I am so cautious.

My client is responsible for the cable, they are responsible for the EIC against which it was installed, they don't have it.

The installers are quite dodgy, even though they are a so called "registered" contractor.

They use subbies left right & centre, and don't control them adequately.

Their work is mediocre at best.

I have been tasked by my client with risk minimisation.

Due to the age of the install the installer could have legitimately binned the EIC.

So I have to look at RA's for everything beyond what is obvious in BS7671.

It gets complicated.

The EICR is just part of a total assessment of the property I have to do.

As per the other posts, & I'm not sure if I am repeating myself.

My client is responsible for the installation and the upkeep of the cable.

My client has a building in the grounds of the house.

The tenant uses my clients building, almost daily.

The house & grounds are social housing.

My client has no control over the works that goes on within the house.

Within the last 3 years the property has had solar PV fitted, my client did not know.

You could say that it is none of their business, but, due to the usage of the building in the grounds, it could have had VERY SERIOUS implications it the solar PV had been incorrectly installed.

TBH I doubt that the installers even thought about what else was at the property.

More by luck than judgement my clients install is off the origin, so, the potential for issues was minimised, and, after a cursory 5 minute look, it seemed that the solar is reasonably well installed, i.e. not back feeding any final circuits, which is a start.

I have to be very careful with what I say, and how I say it, it's a VERY complicated scenario.

 

[Sidewinder]

It sounds as if you have an alternative motive here. It is not your responsibility to police previous installs. You are employed to tell your client the current state of their installation. Not protect them. If they want to further employ you as a consultant then that is different. In this thread you are stating that you are there to do an EICR. Carry that out and get paid. 

I am their electrical consultant too Essex, I am tasked to protect them as far as possible from their previous mistakes, and assist them to rectify these in a cost effective way, to minimise their risk, and cost.

They have given me Carte Blanche to put things right.

However, I won't do this unless I can justify my reasoning and back it up with regulations, the reason being I have to keep both of us in the clear, and ensure that we are both acting legally.

 

[Essex1]

You could consider issuing two documents. One being the EICR which is what it is and the other a professional assessment regarding installation standards and record keeping of the company's electrical installations. You could angle it as a breach of The HASAWA with recommendations following from that. 

 

[Sidewinder]

You could consider issuing two documents. One being the EICR which is what it is and the other a professional assessment regarding installation standards and record keeping of the company's electrical installations. You could angle it as a breach of The HASAWA with recommendations following from that. 

Essex, it's all a big game you know that from dealing with NR etc.

My client has no budget for consultancy, they have a budget for ECIR's!

You know what I mean, I'm sure.

So, they need an EICR against the current version of BS7671, which highlights any deficiencies against BS7671 when the install was completed, that could cause danger etc. IYKWIM.

So they get their EICR invoice with an enhanced report because if they get two reports one will potentially not be an EICR, thus they have no budget to pay for it, yada yada yada etc.

 

[Essex1]

Is there a regulation number for issuing EIC upon completion of works?

 

[Sidewinder]

Is there a regulation number for issuing EIC upon completion of works?

610.6 would be a start for that.

Then 631.1, 631.2, 631.3, 631.4 & 631.5.

Then 632 (all) 633 (all), as required.

So in short yes!

Is there a regulation number for issuing EIC upon completion of works?

610.6 would be a start for that.

Then 631.1, 631.2, 631.3, 631.4 & 631.5.

Then 632 (all) 633 (all), as required.

So in short yes!

Oh & yes, this has been a requirement since the 1st edition IIRC, I can check if needed.#

I&T was certainly required in the 1st Ed.