Opinions please

[binky]

I've always been of the opinion that you can sleeve any colour insulated conductor and use it as what ever you fancy. IE an insulated earth could be sleeved blue and used as neutral, and you could sleeve a brown to use it as earth, the point being that correct sleeving always this. Can't think of anything that says you can't use an insulated earth as a live core. You can't use a cpc in FTE as this si un-insulated as pointed out above

 

[steptoe]

Well the regs must have changed a lot then,

It was a definite NO to ever being allowed to use a G/Y for any purpose other than earth when I last looked.

 

[Davethsparky]

iirc, G/Y cannot be over sleeved and used as something else, unlike other conductors. i guess it could be over sleeved cream, but thats it

EDIT: 514.4.2

Which only states that single core cables may not be overmarked at their terminations except for a PEN conductor, it does not say that a g/y core of a multi cored cable cannot be overmarked and used for another purpose. 

 

[steptoe]

The presence of danger or potential danger doesn't change purely based on the age of the installation. 

If something is potentially dangerous then it will be the same regardless of when it was installed.

the point of the EICR is to identify any defects or possible improvements relating to safety, bs7671 being the standard which defines what is, or is not, safe.

a lighting circuit wouldn't warrant any code on its own, but if it was installed in T&E buried less than 50mm deep it would be a C3, if it's in a bathroom without supplementary bonding it's a C2 and if supplementary bonding is in place it's a C3. 

An EICR is not assessing compliance at the time of installation, it is assessing safety at the time of the inspection and test.

So you are basically saying every install carried out last year is C3 everywhere as a minimum,? :shakehead

An EICR MUST take into account the regs in force at the time of installation,

That's the difference between that and an EIC,  

A CU installed now in domestic must be fireproof, bombproof, whatever, last year plastic CUs were acceptable, you can't automatically code a plastic CU fitted last year, but you could code one fitted this year. 

 

[Davethsparky]

So you are basically saying every install carried out last year is C3 everywhere as a minimum,? :shakehead

An EICR MUST take into account the regs in force at the time of installation,

That's the difference between that and an EIC,  

A CU installed now in domestic must be fireproof, bombproof, whatever, last year plastic CUs were acceptable, you can't automatically code a plastic CU fitted last year, but you could code one fitted this year. 

No I am not saying everything installed last year is a C3 minimum, it is only a C3 if an improvement could be made for safety.

Read the first paragraph of the guidance for the person producing the report in the model forms. The EICR should only record those non compliances which give rise to danger (which is the same thing as improvements for safety)

You can only code a plastic CU if you think there could be an improvement for safety, it is potentially dangerous or it is dangerous. 

The coding does not change based on the age of the installation, and it would be impossible to enforce such a daft idea. Unless everyone carrying out EICRs is going to be issued with a copy of every edition since 1882 and an accurate mans of establishing the date of the installation! 

 

[steptoe]

No I am not saying everything installed last year is a C3 minimum, it is only a C3 if an improvement could be made for safety.

Read the first paragraph of the guidance for the person producing the report in the model forms. The EICR should only record those non compliances which give rise to danger (which is the same thing as improvements for safety)

You can only code a plastic CU if you think there could be an improvement for safety, it is potentially dangerous or it is dangerous. 

The coding does not change based on the age of the installation, and it would be impossible to enforce such a daft idea. Unless everyone carrying out EICRs is going to be issued with a copy of every edition since 1882 and an accurate mans of establishing the date of the installation! 

You have clearly said that the date of install must be taken into account,

If a plastic CU was installed this year then it must be a C2 as it was non compliant at time of installation, if it was installed last year then no code may be necessary, 

If a lighting circuit with <50mm cables was installed in 2013 then more than likely it will be a code 2, as it was non compliant at the time of install, if it was installed in 1990 then it was compliant at time of install, so unless other factors are evident it is only a C3 at worst,

Date of install is paramount to codings for an EICR, thinking otherwise is foolish,

Edit, apparently changing a CU from plastic to metal is an improvement to safety, according to LFB, so it's a C3 then,?   :C

 

[Manator]

@Davethsparky Some wise words there pal.

Previous installations were installed to standards acceptable at the time. In consequent updates a statement has been included in the regulations from the Health and Safety Executive, which states that previous installations, whilst not meeting current standards are not deemed unsafe.

The code C3 should be used not for a Blanche Carte admittance of non compliance, but rather where if used the safety can be improved.

In my new job (just started), I am responsible for all the testing within the company I work for. I have to be exact and the company I work for are very critical.

One of the largest parts of any EICR that I do is the risk assessment of the staff and any type of maintenance regime in place.This would have a direct impact on the relevant coding that I give.

 

[Davethsparky]

You have clearly said that the date of install must be taken into account,

If a plastic CU was installed this year then it must be a C2 as it was non compliant at time of installation, if it was installed last year then no code may be necessary, 

If a lighting circuit with <50mm cables was installed in 2013 then more than likely it will be a code 2, as it was non compliant at the time of install, if it was installed in 1990 then it was compliant at time of install, so unless other factors are evident it is only a C3 at worst,

Date of install is paramount to codings for an EICR, thinking otherwise is foolish,

Edit, apparently changing a CU from plastic to metal is an improvement to safety, according to LFB, so it's a C3 then,?   :C

a C2 can only be given if a potential danger is there (general accepted as meaning something which will become dangerous under fault conditions) it cannot be given just because something didn't comply at the time of installation. If something does not comply at the time of installation then it must be a refusal to issue an EIC or else it is a non-compliant installation. 

An EICR is not there to assess compliance at the time of installation, it is there to assess the safety of the installation at the time of carrying it out.

you could push this to the extreme end of the scale and say that you cannot code a fused neutral because it complied at the time of installation, or an open fronted slate switchboard. 

Consideration has to be given to the date of the installation, otherwise you'd end up with every pre-harmonisation installation being coded for the wrong colours!

 

[Davethsparky]

You have clearly said that the date of install must be taken into account,

If a plastic CU was installed this year then it must be a C2 as it was non compliant at time of installation, if it was installed last year then no code may be necessary, 

If a lighting circuit with <50mm cables was installed in 2013 then more than likely it will be a code 2, as it was non compliant at the time of install, if it was installed in 1990 then it was compliant at time of install, so unless other factors are evident it is only a C3 at worst,

Date of install is paramount to codings for an EICR, thinking otherwise is foolish,

Edit, apparently changing a CU from plastic to metal is an improvement to safety, according to LFB, so it's a C3 then,?   :C

I would strongly recommend you read and understand the making of 621.1 and 621.2 (particularly 621.2(iv) ) it quite clearly states that the EICR is to identify departures from the current regulations which give rise to danger (the severity of this being identified through the C codes)

 

[steptoe]

I give up, :shakehead

Arguing with an idiot just confuses people as to who the idiot actually is,!

According to current regs plastic CUs spontaneously combust, thereby making them dangerous, how do you code them,? 

You must take into account date of install, how hard is that to understand,?  

 

[Adrian]

I'm with Dave on this one

 

[Essex1]

I'm with Dave on this one

Me also. 

 

[NozSpark]

The problem with the regs is that they assume that everything has been installed correctly in the first place.... unfortunately this is often far from the case

So surely you cannot let a plastic cu installed in, say Feb 2016 away without a code of some sort

 

[Manator]

The problem with the regs is that they assume that everything has been installed correctly in the first place.... unfortunately this is often far from the case

So surely you cannot let a plastic cu installed in, say Feb 2016 away without a code of some sort

This is why you need to know former regulations, and as you state, the example you give would warrant a C2 because it was not installed to the regulations applied at the time.

I started my career under the 14th edition, but passed my finals under the 15th, so I have a wide experience of previous editions that helps when I do any EICR's.I still constantly trawl through countless pages of data to help support my opinion as to what code I should give.

 

[steptoe]

a C2 can only be given if a potential danger is there (general accepted as meaning something which will become dangerous under fault conditions) it cannot be given just because something didn't comply at the time of installation. If something does not comply at the time of installation then it must be a refusal to issue an EIC or else it is a non-compliant installation. 

An EICR is not there to assess compliance at the time of installation, it is there to assess the safety of the installation at the time of carrying it out.

you could push this to the extreme end of the scale and say that you cannot code a fused neutral because it complied at the time of installation, or an open fronted slate switchboard. 

Consideration has to be given to the date of the installation, otherwise you'd end up with every pre-harmonisation installation being coded for the wrong colours!

Wrong,

A C2 is considered when something else along with the existing discrepancy would cause a C1, nothing to do with a fault occurring,

A C1 is when something is immediately dangerous, ie, bare wires,

A C2 could be a damaged socket, whereby further damage could result in bare conductors being accessible, NO fault required,.

only an example, but a fault alone is not a reason to C2 something, another action is a reason to upgrade from a C3 to a C2,

 

[Davethsparky]

Wrong,

A C2 is considered when something else along with the existing discrepancy would cause a C1, nothing to do with a fault occurring,

A C1 is when something is immediately dangerous, ie, bare wires,

A C2 could be a damaged socket, whereby further damage could result in bare conductors being accessible, NO fault required,.

only an example, but a fault alone is not a reason to C2 something, another action is a reason to upgrade from a C3 to a C2,

At least we agree on something, C1 is immediately dangerous and is pretty much any exposed conductor. 

A damaged socket is not a C2 if it requires further damage to become dangerous, otherwise every socket whether it is damaged or not must be potentially dangerous as they could all become dangerous if damage occurs.

potentially dangerous is something which has the potential to become dangerous as a result of the identified defect. Damage to a socket does not automatically make further damage more likely, the next socket which gets damaged could just as easily be one which is in good condition. A better example of a C2 is an undersized earthing conductor, under normal operating conditions it is not dangerous, it has the potential to be dangerous if an earth fault occurs. 

 

[Davethsparky]

The problem with the regs is that they assume that everything has been installed correctly in the first place.... unfortunately this is often far from the case

So surely you cannot let a plastic cu installed in, say Feb 2016 away without a code of some sort

You cannot code it any differently to how you would code it if it was installed three months earlier. But you would advise the customer that it has not been installed correctly and that they should take action against the installer, but presumably there is already some cause for concern if you are carrying out an EICR within a month of the work having been carried out.

assuming that everything has been installed in accordance with the regs is not a problem with the regs, it would make a mockery of the whole thing if the very rules we are supposed to follow assumed that we would not have followed them!

 an EICR is not an assessment of whether it complied at the time of installation, it is an assessment of the installation's fitness for continued use. 

If the regulations have changed then the installation may no longer be fit for continued use without upgrades being carried out, the EICR should identify these. 

 

[Davethsparky]

I give up, :shakehead

Arguing with an idiot just confuses people as to who the idiot actually is,!

According to current regs plastic CUs spontaneously combust, thereby making them dangerous, how do you code them,? 

You must take into account date of install, how hard is that to understand,?  

Resorting to insults generally suggests that a person has reached the end of their knowledge or ability and is turning to simple abuse to attempt to make themselves look correct. 

The current regs do not say that plastic CUs spontaneously combust, they say that a CU in a domestic environment should be non-combustible or enclosed in an non-combustible enclosure. 

There is nothing to say you must take date of install into account, the regulations only say that compliance with previous regulations doesn't necessarily mean that it is unsafe. There is a big difference between this and just giving carte Blanche to accept anything installed to previous regulations regardless. 

Regulations change for a reason, whether you agree with the reason or not is irrelevant, you cannot decide which ones you want to apply or not. if an installation practice is found to present danger and the regulations change to reflect this then it doesn't magically make that danger only occur in work carried out after that date.

one day, many years ago the regulations changed from requiring a fuse in the N to not permitting I as the potential danger had been recognised. Was this danger only present in N fused installations after this date or did that danger exist for every neutral fused circuit? 

 

[binky]

calm down.

I have to disagee with the damaged socket or any other accessory, to me that is a C2 everytime. If it's been danaged once, chances are it will be damaged again, but more importantly you just can't guess how long before is falls to bits and exposes live conductors. Now I know in some cases that could be years, and you can argue a hairline-split in say a back box from a heavy handed sparky isn't really dangerous. But the fact remains damage means a compromised product.

 

[NozSpark]

I agree with Binky... and more to the point the ESC best practice guide No.4 even states that a badly damaged accessory is a C1 so IMHO a less damaged one has to be a C2

Code C2 (Potentially dangerous)
This code should be used to indicate that, whilst an observed deficiency is not considered to be dangerous at the time of the periodic inspection, it would become an immediate danger if a fault or other foreseeable event was to occur in the installation or connected equipment.