So in your opinion is a 1980s installation without RCD protection on cables in walls a C2 or a C3 ?
Serious question
EICR Certificate
- Thread starter startingtopuff
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
Serious question
I know this is mainly at SW...but...
My view is at present it would be difficult to justify 'more' than a C3 for it. In fact as you are only supposed to report issues that could give rise to danger (now defined as non-compliances) and not those which don't (now simply non-comformaties). In in essence with C3, you are recommending the issue is addressed but its non urgent, then is it actually right that the office building with RCD protetcion to socket outlets but nothing else gets a recommendation that they 'should' add RCD protection to every other circuit in the building, which would cost a lot (and may not be possible if the board is obselete) and make the boards very packed and difficult to work on in future. Its where the old code 4 was usful to have TBH.
In domestic its usually a C3, it is sensible to recommend updating, afterall in domestic you could have people running round drilling holes with little regard for safe-zones, etc. In commerial I'm a bit more flexible and may sometimes note the issue but allocate a no-code, thus putting it outside the issues raised on the EICR but noted incase someone wonders why in future.
One might possibly have several non-codes, perhaps ones that as above, indicates things that don't meet 7671 but where it doesnt impair safety but want to note that you have seen and assessed it (even if not used on the above issue, it could be deployed for things like green sleeving without a stripe), perhaps one to indicate things that may be a problem under other standards rather than BS7671 (perhaps lack of emergeny lighting in the intake room), and perhaps a final one that just indicates a narrative comment is isn't actually indicating something is wrong (perhaps a cpc is very small, but the adiabatic has been calculated and it ins't a problem, although at first glance it looked like it might be)
My view is at present it would be difficult to justify 'more' than a C3 for it. In fact as you are only supposed to report issues that could give rise to danger (now defined as non-compliances) and not those which don't (now simply non-comformaties). In in essence with C3, you are recommending the issue is addressed but its non urgent, then is it actually right that the office building with RCD protetcion to socket outlets but nothing else gets a recommendation that they 'should' add RCD protection to every other circuit in the building, which would cost a lot (and may not be possible if the board is obselete) and make the boards very packed and difficult to work on in future. Its where the old code 4 was usful to have TBH.
In domestic its usually a C3, it is sensible to recommend updating, afterall in domestic you could have people running round drilling holes with little regard for safe-zones, etc. In commerial I'm a bit more flexible and may sometimes note the issue but allocate a no-code, thus putting it outside the issues raised on the EICR but noted incase someone wonders why in future.
One might possibly have several non-codes, perhaps ones that as above, indicates things that don't meet 7671 but where it doesnt impair safety but want to note that you have seen and assessed it (even if not used on the above issue, it could be deployed for things like green sleeving without a stripe), perhaps one to indicate things that may be a problem under other standards rather than BS7671 (perhaps lack of emergeny lighting in the intake room), and perhaps a final one that just indicates a narrative comment is isn't actually indicating something is wrong (perhaps a cpc is very small, but the adiabatic has been calculated and it ins't a problem, although at first glance it looked like it might be)
I understand it's a serious question, and that's fine, and I am going to give you my honest answer, which I know you are not going to like!
I am going to say it could be either, but generally, I might tend to a C2.
My reasoning is:
It is domestic and could be subject to DIY at any time.
DIY'ers don't necessarily know about, nor understand safe zones.
There is not necessarily adequate mechanical protection over the cable to prevent drilling damage in the event of a DIY incident.
The cable might or might not be in safe zones.
The spark is legally bound to comply with EAWR even in a domestic premises.
The consequences of a DIY accident could be devastating to a family.
I would err on the side of caution.
This minimises my risk, why should I take a risk on something when I feel I could justify this.
The installation is coming up for 40 years old so approaching the end of life.
Would I argue against someone who put a C3, I would have to say it depends.
Sorry, if I were the expert witness to the court following a DIY fatality and the cable was in zones then I might not be able to justify a C2, IF, the inspector could put a rational argument forward. The defence from the inspector would be I suspect that the cable was in zones, but, the counter-argument I would put would be, how can you expect a DIY'er to know about zones.
If the cable was out of zones, I could turn around and say, you were doing an EICR, you couldn't confirm the wiring routes, so why did you not code C2 in the knowledge that this scenario was possible, and could result in a fatality with no RCD fitted?
The issue we have is the absolute duty under EAWR reg 16, it would then be down to the inspector to construct a Reg 29 defence.
so on that basis you are condemning about 70% of the UKs housing stock - countless homes don’t have mcbs let alone full RCD protectionI understand it's a serious question, and that's fine, and I am going to give you my honest answer, which I know you are not going to like!
I am going to say it could be either, but generally, I might tend to a C2.
My reasoning is:
It is domestic and could be subject to DIY at any time.
DIY'ers don't necessarily know about, nor understand safe zones.
There is not necessarily adequate mechanical protection over the cable to prevent drilling damage in the event of a DIY incident.
The cable might or might not be in safe zones.
The spark is legally bound to comply with EAWR even in a domestic premises.
The consequences of a DIY accident could be devastating to a family.
I would err on the side of caution.
This minimises my risk, why should I take a risk on something when I feel I could justify this.
The installation is coming up for 40 years old so approaching the end of life.
Would I argue against someone who put a C3, I would have to say it depends.
Sorry, if I were the expert witness to the court following a DIY fatality and the cable was in zones then I might not be able to justify a C2, IF, the inspector could put a rational argument forward. The defence from the inspector would be I suspect that the cable was in zones, but, the counter-argument I would put would be, how can you expect a DIY'er to know about zones.
If the cable was out of zones, I could turn around and say, you were doing an EICR, you couldn't confirm the wiring routes, so why did you not code C2 in the knowledge that this scenario was possible, and could result in a fatality with no RCD fitted?
The issue we have is the absolute duty under EAWR reg 16, it would then be down to the inspector to construct a Reg 29 defence.
IMHO the C3 is very appropriate in such cases. Improvement recommended - so the client has been told, if no code or comment has been assigned them the inspector would be in a difficult position should anything happen.
this position is backed up be the electrical safety council best practice guide No 4, issue 5 which Napit contributed to.
i find this whole situation rather saddening where there is no push from successive Governments to make improvements, let alone educate hard pressed home owners, and then the scare mongering begins by hugely inconsistent messages from different parts of the building trade
bottom line is that people have conflicting opinions, which doesn’t help one little bit and we just get caught up in the resulting cross fire
I understand it's a serious question, and that's fine, and I am going to give you my honest answer, which I know you are not going to like!
I am going to say it could be either, but generally, I might tend to a C2.
My reasoning is:
It is domestic and could be subject to DIY at any time.
DIY'ers don't necessarily know about, nor understand safe zones.
There is not necessarily adequate mechanical protection over the cable to prevent drilling damage in the event of a DIY incident.
The cable might or might not be in safe zones.
The spark is legally bound to comply with EAWR even in a domestic premises.
The consequences of a DIY accident could be devastating to a family.
I would err on the side of caution.
This minimises my risk, why should I take a risk on something when I feel I could justify this.
The installation is coming up for 40 years old so approaching the end of life.
Would I argue against someone who put a C3, I would have to say it depends.
Sorry, if I were the expert witness to the court following a DIY fatality and the cable was in zones then I might not be able to justify a C2, IF, the inspector could put a rational argument forward. The defence from the inspector would be I suspect that the cable was in zones, but, the counter-argument I would put would be, how can you expect a DIY'er to know about zones.
If the cable was out of zones, I could turn around and say, you were doing an EICR, you couldn't confirm the wiring routes, so why did you not code C2 in the knowledge that this scenario was possible, and could result in a fatality with no RCD fitted?
The issue we have is the absolute duty under EAWR reg 16, it would then be down to the inspector to construct a Reg 29 defence.
to which the magic answer is 'LIM' :innocent
Similar threads
