EICR advice and costs... help.

[RF Lighting]

I don’t think a lack of surge protection makes an installation dangerous but I do think that it is non compliant and would record it as such.

I’d expect a 1992 installation to have issues with the bonding and lack of RCD protection which would be potentially dangerous.

 

[JohnW2]

I don’t think a lack of surge protection makes an installation dangerous but I do think that it is non compliant and would record it as such.

Sure - but, per what I've just written, that surely means that it should be given (if anything) a C3 (ideally a 'C4' if they hadn't got rid of it), not a C2, doesn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Yes. I’m not sure anyone is saying otherwise are they?

 

[EFLImpudence]

The OP's inspector is.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes. I’m not sure anyone is saying otherwise are they?

I don't think that even eric is necessarily 'saying otherwise' (although he probably goes further) - but the EICR we're talking about may well have been undertaken by someone who 'thinks otherwise'.

As I understand it, eric's comments about 'things which were conformant in 1992' relates primarily to whether they were (and currently are) considered to be 'potentially dangerous' (hence C2). I may be wrong, but I don't think he would have a problem with giving a C3 to something that was conformant in 1992 but not today.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

The regulations are not retrospective, but that’s a very misleading statement in the context of EICRs. An EICR is carried out using the current version of BS7671 as a reference. It doesn’t matter when the installation was installed or last inspected. I would very much except a 1992 installation to receive multiple C2s and an unsatisfactory report.

Code 4 = does not comply with current edition for new installation has been removed from the EICR as was seen as being misleading, the code C2 means potential dangerous and is not linked to BS7671.

Every edition I have seen of the wiring regulations gives a date after which any thing DESIGNED after must comply, so an installation designed in 1992 has to comply with original 16th Edition. However it uses words like "does not necessarily" as if some building regulations or CENELEC harmonization document requires a change then even if it complies with the edition in force when designed, there may have been other changes which don't allow the continued use.

Over the years earth bonding has changed many times, I remember metal window frames being bonded at one point, and I have only a couple of copies of the regulations so even if I wanted I could not check if an earth is required on the lights of a 1965 house, we all know with that one it was 1966 when the rule changed, but I can't produce a copy of the wiring regulations to show in 1965 you don't need an earth.

So it is just as well looking as potential dangerous not does not comply. However although the regulations may say manufacturers instructions should be taken into account not followed blindly, since we in the main have no idea why a boiler manufacturer states it needs to be protected by a type A RCD at 30 mA we have really no option but to note lack of RCD, as to if code C2 or C3 I would agree not cut and dried, but be it solar panels, or electric car charging point today the requirements are getting complex, so the inspector on going around the home seeing an inverter drive washing machine, inverter drive freezer, solar panels and electric car charging point could in theory issue a code C2 even when a 30 mA type AC RCD is fitted.

I think that would be going OTT, but in real terms to be sure nothing which a manufacturer says needs RCD protection is in the home is near impossible, and with lack of bonding or a TT supply clearly a C2, but for rest I would say C3.

Don't get me wrong I think all homes should have RCD protection, what we are doing is looking at the English not what should be done, but with a TN installation with all bonding in place, and no fixed equipment which asks for RCD protection then can't see how it can be a C2.

“consumer’s installation” means the electric lines situated upon the consumer’s side of the supply terminals together with any equipment permanently connected or intended to be permanently connected thereto on that side;

is the problem "intended to be permanently connected" will to my mind include washing machine, tumble drier, freezer, fridge freezer, extractor fans, showers, immersion heater, and central heating boiler. And I think it would be rare that one of those did not say it needs RCD protection.

So I can say not retrospective, which is true, but likely some thing will mean there needs to be RCD protection. I see

701.411.3.3 Additional protection by RCDs
Additional protection shall be provided for all circuits of the location, by the use of one or more RCDs having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1.
NOTE: See also Regulations 314.1(iv) and 531.2.4 concerning the avoidance of unwanted tripping.

quoted many times however not sure I would want to quote any regulation, as then it makes it look as if following the current regulations as if a new build, and if cured by not fitting a RCD but bonding instead, then there could still be a potential danger due to electric car charging or solar panels.

 

[ray78]

Thanks folks - seems to ignited a lot of debate : )
My novice research suggests this may be about fair though (the quote to get it fixed up). All i wish to do is to do the right thing by my tenants, and obviously in terms of safety!

A new 18th edition consumer unit will be supplied and fitted complete with RCBOs and SPD. We carry out this work for £650. We issue a EIC and a new EICR upon completion

 

[RF Lighting]

The OP's inspector is.

I see no reference to SPDs in the list of codes, or any mention that it’s absence makes the installation unsafe merely that the new CU will contain an SPD, which seems entirely reasonable.

 

[EFLImpudence]

No. SPDs were my example as hardly any installations will have one when an EICR is carried out.

The OP has several C2s (although all for the same thing) because there are no RCDs.

 

[RF Lighting]

You’re confusing me now. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

 

[JohnW2]

I see no reference to SPDs in the list of codes, or any mention that it’s absence makes the installation unsafe merely that the new CU will contain an SPD, which seems entirely reasonable.

No. SPDs were my example as hardly any installations will have one when an EICR is carried out. The OP has several C2s (although all for the same thing) because there are no RCDs.

You’re confusing me now. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

As EFLI said, he was merely using SPDs as an example.

The EICR we're talking about it had a whole list of C2s for lack of RCD protection of "this, that and the other" (all as required by current regs). In 1992 (or whenever) an installation lacking RCDs for most (probably all) things was conformant with the then-current regs., as also was obviously the case for installations without SPDs. You have agreed that, despite now being required by current regs, lack of an SPD only deserves a C3, so you are being asked why that is not equally true in the case of a lack of RCDs.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Oh ok because lack of RCDs presents a greater risk than lack of SPD so it gets a higher code.

Open live knife switches used to be allowed but are more dangerous than either of the two items so would receive a C1.

More dangerous = higher code. I don’t see what’s difficult to understand about that.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You said:

The regulations are not retrospective, but that’s a very misleading statement in the context of EICRs. An EICR is carried out using the current version of BS7671 as a reference. It doesn’t matter when the installation was installed or last inspected. I would very much except a 1992 installation to receive multiple C2s and an unsatisfactory report.

which I took to mean that you think lack of RCDs warrants a C2 meaning it is now "potentially dangerous" (when it wasn't before) and must be rectified.

I was making the point that virtually all installations would now be viewed in the same way because they do not have an SPD.

I do not think this would be correct and the lack of RCDs and SPDs do not make an installation "potentially dangerous" (when it wasn't before) therefore do not warrant a C2 - merely a C3 for "improvement recommended".

 

[RF Lighting]

If an installation has no RCDs and no supplementary bonding in the bathroom, or has high risk socket outlets such as those which are likely to supply equipment outdoors without RCD protection then I think a C2 is perfectly justified and all the guide books I’ve seen suggest this to be the correct code.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If an installation has no RCDs and no supplementary bonding in the bathroom,

That surely would be a C2 just for lack of supplementary bonding - assuming it is required; it might not be.

or has high risk socket outlets such as those which are likely to supply equipment outdoors without RCD protection then I think a C2 is perfectly justified and all the guide books I’ve seen suggest this to be the correct code.

We shall disagree if that is how it was satisfactorily installed at the time.