Remedials on a EICR / DNO responsibility

[TheGayOwl]

Hi folks,

Asked to do some minor remedials on a third-party EICR. Query is this: it is the DNO's responsibility to upgrade the main earth (TN-S) to MET. It is currently approx 4mm CSA. The Ze is 0.36. Main bonding is all good.

So would the DNO bother to upgrade it, or deem it satisfactory due to the Ze? Client would like to know whether they need to contact the DNO or not prior to renting it out.

Thanking you.

 

[westie101]

No harm in trying, but as it does not form part of the installation rather it is part of the DNO network so does not come under BS7671. As such though it could be commented on it should not be included in an EICR.

 

[TheGayOwl]

Thanks Westie,

I was going to mention your name in the subject box, as it is your area of definitive knowledge! But I did not want to make you feel in anyway obliged to reply!

It was mentioned on a summary sheet with the EICR, as a non-coded improvement. I note what you say with regards to the scope of 7671 versus the DNO's hymn-sheet. Why do EICR forms now include inspections for cut outs and metering equipment? It does puzzle me slightly.

Regards.

 

[westie101]

Why do EICR forms now include inspections for cut outs and metering equipment? It does puzzle me slightly.

Hmm, didn't know that, possibly so that anything obvious could be spotted by someone with electrical knowledge and reported to the DNO/supplier.
With a meter read/inspection only required at infrequent intervals it makes sense.

One thing, we much prefer the electrical contractor to contact us as it saves a game of Chinese whispers to get to the actual issue. Or get the customer to give us his phone number for us to call back

though of course a problem could always be reported with the cut-out, this would get it changed and the earth wire upgraded (part of the job) - but I never said that![/b]

 

[TheGayOwl]

possibly so that anything obvious could be spotted by someone with electrical knowledge and reported to the DNO/supplier.
With a meter read/inspection only required at infrequent intervals it makes sense.

Yes agree with that. Just not sure why on 7671 form now. The inspections listed are:

DISTRIBUTOR’S / SUPPLY INTAKE EQUIPMENT
1.1
Service cable condition
1.2
Condition of service head
1.3
Condition of tails - Distributor
1.4
Condition of tails - Consumer
1.5
Condition of metering equipment
1.6
Condition of isolator (where present)

All to given a code 1-3 if necessary.

I will relay your thoughts onto the landlord and let them decide if they want to ring (chinese whispers are great!). The DNO earth is secure and Ze good afterall.

Thanks again.

Thats a terrible thing to do....I would never do such a thing!

 

[TheGayOwl]

Whys my font size not changed for that last line..... tiny... huge... tiny....damn still not changing!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Query is this: it is the DNO's responsibility to upgrade the main earth (TN-S) to MET. It is currently approx 4mm CSA. The Ze is 0.36.

No but if an earth conductor is present they may take responsibility for maintaining it.

So would the DNO bother to upgrade it, or deem it satisfactory due to the Ze? Client would like to know whether they need to contact the DNO or not prior to renting it out.

The DNO will maintain it or even upgrade the arrangement, the latter often comes at a cost, in the region of £160 (prices per location may vary)

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Yes agree with that. Just not sure why on 7671 form now. The inspections listed are:

DISTRIBUTOR’S / SUPPLY INTAKE EQUIPMENT
1.1
Service cable condition
1.2
Condition of service head
1.3
Condition of tails - Distributor
1.4
Condition of tails - Consumer
1.5
Condition of metering equipment
1.6
Condition of isolator (where present)

All to given a code 1-3 if necessary.

Doing the job of the DNO, after all it is their equipment and they should really be made responsible for the inspection of it.
Just reported a code 1 on a service head, the code 1 must have been there at least four years. The house owner is currently having his newly laid block paved drive dug up, that could have been avoided if the DNO actually did some proactive inspections.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Whys my font size not changed for that last line..... tiny... huge... tiny....damn still not changing!

because you did this
Thats a terrible thing to do....I would never do such a thing!
not this Thats a terrible thing to do....I would never do such a thing!
you have not put the [/size] at the end of the sentence you wish to alter.
but straight after the [size7], the size only changes the text between the two brackets, which you have nothing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So he did.

[s¡ze=7][/s¡ze] Thats a terrible thing to do....I would never do such a thing!

 

[TheGayOwl]

Doing the job of the DNO, after all it is their equipment and they should really be made responsible for the inspection of it.
Just reported a code 1 on a service head, the code 1 must have been there at least four years. The house owner is currently having his newly laid block paved drive dug up, that could have been avoided if the DNO actually did some proactive inspections.

Yes, I have previously reported issues with dodgy cutout fuse carriers and the like. I would always inform DNO where need be.

Try again, silly me!



Thanks

Simple really!