EICR QUESTION?

I would recommend a change of CU, as to if code 3 or code 2 not so sure, I know the regulations say what date they apply, but that's OK if one is given paperwork stating the design date, other wise one must consider it was designed yesterday.
Not sure what you saying here Eric, whatever the design date and the regulations that applied at that time is not relevant. A code is attributed to whatever defect is found according to the risk/perceived risk, the design date has nothing to do with what code is awarded.

Example - we ref it to the date on inspection and the codes that apply today. A code or no code applies today or does not apply today according to what is there now, irrespective of whether it was designed or installed last week, last year or 10, 20, 30,100 years ago, the code will be exactly the same.

In fact, at least once, I have coded my own house rewire several years afterwards, Of course I needed to explain to the customer " How I had not done a non compliant rewire all of those years ago, but now the regs have updated, several times"
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
I seem to remember Type 2 is roughly equivalent to B and Type 3 to C. Thermal protection (fusing current) is probably different.
 
C3 The CU and a comment along the lines of “it would make good sense to have the CU updated sooner rather than later.

Obviously a drive by cowboy would be giving it a C1 or C2
 
C3 The CU and a comment along the lines of “it would make good sense to have the CU updated sooner rather than later.

Obviously a drive by cowboy would be giving it a C1 or C2
C3 The CU and a comment along the lines of “it would make good sense to have the CU updated sooner rather than later.

Well you have to actually state what the defect actually is in regards to non-compliance before awarding a code. Then you may or may not decide to add "It would make good sense ..........." .

You do often see comments on defects like "Needs consumer unit change or needs socket replacing" and no mention of what the defect actually is
 
Sponsored Links
If you are following the electrical safety councils guidance then, with the possible exception of upper floor flats, no RCD protection at all will likely result in a mix of C2s for some circuits and C3s for others.

(I do not know if that is the OP's scenario)
 
Well you have to actually state what the defect actually is in regards to non-compliance before awarding a code.
For no RCD protection at all on an installation in a house I'd expect at least.

C2 - no RCD protection tor sockets reasonablly expected to supply equipment outdoors.
C3- no RCD protection for sockets not reasonably expected to supply equipment outdoors.
C3 - no RCD protection for concealed cables.
C3 - no RCD protection for domestic lighting.

Possiblly others too depending on whether the bathroom had supplementary bonding in place, whether it was a TT supply and so-on.
 
Don't follow the electrical safety councils guidance then; it has no authority.

Well. It may not have any authority BUT there is nothing in the public domain to give poor unsuspecting home owners any guidance AND I believe NICEIC members are supposed to use it as guidance

Napit have their awful Codebreakers book which conflicts with the BP guide but they are on the list of people who contributed to it

Go figure
 
I disagree that things become potentially dangerous because additional safety devices are introduced.

Electricity itself is potentially dangerous so, as usual, it is very poor terminology but I can still disagree with what they mean.
 
What has made that circuit 'potentially dangerous' since it was not deemed so when installed?
our perception changes when we compare to todays standards. What code for no main bonding. how long ago was it not required at all? how long ago were smaller csa of bonding conductors the requirement?
 
our perception changes when we compare to todays standards.
...but making things safer does not mean the previous was 'potentially dangerous' (notwithstanding poor terminology) nor that is now mandatory for the householder to update the installation; see BS7671.

What code for no main bonding. how long ago was it not required at all?
You tell me.

how long ago were smaller csa of bonding conductors the requirement?
Until the DNOs stopped maintaining their equipment satisfactorily.
 
Not sure what you saying here Eric, whatever the design date and the regulations that applied at that time is not relevant. A code is attributed to whatever defect is found according to the risk/perceived risk, the design date has nothing to do with what code is awarded.

Example - we ref it to the date on inspection and the codes that apply today. A code or no code applies today or does not apply today according to what is there now, irrespective of whether it was designed or installed last week, last year or 10, 20, 30,100 years ago, the code will be exactly the same.

In fact, at least once, I have coded my own house rewire several years afterwards, Of course I needed to explain to the customer " How I had not done a non compliant rewire all of those years ago, but now the regs have updated, several times"
I lot of what ones says is true, if nothing has changed, and a installation was OK in 1954 then it should still be OK. So yes I am wrong, it does not really matter when wired, I hold up hands and say sorry.

However things have changed, for example one could omit the earth wire with lighting fittings using filament lamps installed in a room having a non-conducting floor, mounted at such a height that they cannot readily be touched and are out of reach of earthed metal. But today we don't have filament lamps, so that no longer applies.
As it’s over 20 years since RCD protection entered the regs, I think a C2 in this case is justified
The same applies for many items, I don't have copies of CENELEC Harmonisation Documents, we know the BS 7671 is updated to fall in line with the CENELEC requirements, but not a clue which ones.
Possibly others too depending on whether the bathroom had supplementary bonding in place, whether it was a TT supply and so-on.
This is a problem, we know that plumbers are starting to catch up with the 2008 requirements, and may very well not fit link wires where plastic fittings are used. To test each bit of exposed pipe work to see if it is bonded would take a long time, years ago we were given the scenario of a dog knocking over a standard lamp which smashes onto a radiator, in the room where this has occurred there is no real problem, as occupants can see what has happened, however in other rooms unless bonded the radiators could become live. It is the ability of the pipe work to transmit to fault into other rooms which was considered as a major problem, and we did go rather OTT at one point wanting metal window frames to be bonded.

The changes in 2008 were based on RCD's being fitted, in the main with bathroom supplies, and the scenario related was what in essence caused the death of Emma Shaw, she was not electrocuted in the bathroom but where the stop cock was located, the stop cock was earthed but the metal within the walls was not.

I was rather surprised with my own house, until solar panels were fitted every circuit was RCD protected, but after the central heating supply was no longer RCD protected, I did not think that would be allowed, but I have a compliance certificate issued last year which says it is. The chance of getting a shock off the central heating is very low, sockets on the same supply are fed with SWA and are type A 30 mA RCD sockets.
In this case, those doing the EICR will almost certainly report it needs an urgent rewire, but not based on any genuine inspection.. It was far too brief a visit..
The was in reply to my comment that if it has failed they are duty bound to report this at earliest opportunity, so it must have passed.

We have no idea if the EICR was for a rented property or not, i.e. a legal requirement or owner protecting himself. It should make no difference, however if it is rental then the clock is ticking for any repairs.

It does seem to short of a time to have done all the tests, however unless one has the EICR one can hardly comment, and I would be uneasy at recommending not paying when we have really no idea why the inspection was so fast. Once a circuit has failed there is little point in continuing to inspect and test, if one has found rubber cables which are crumbling then to continue could likely mean the supply can't be turned on again. It is a case of saying a rewire is required ASAP.
 
Yes there might be a case where you find it so bad that you condemn it pretty quickly and there is not much point of completing all the I & T, I have done that and also reduced the cost accordingly because I could pick up back on to other jobs . So. example, lets say I had set aside for 5 hours including writing the cert and the whole lot from start to finish took two hours then I might have saved 3 hours less travelling to next job accordingly.

If an installation was so bad then likely there would be certain defects that must be reported immediately. due to potential danger, to the person requesting the test and the owner and user if they were not the same person as the requester. That important info must not be delayed until the works is paid for - I think that is what some were getting at, no warnings issued then no seriously bad defects instantly mentioned (In theory). I wonder how far a lawyer would tear you to shreds if you neglected such duty of care and injury/serious incident resulted?
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top