C3 is not compliant with 17th edition. It does comply, as it is after all a bit of cable, but is basically dangerous due to sheer age, C3 is not appropiate as it truly represents a risk. C2 minimum. You wimped out smickster to keep people happy. Ask your self this, if **** happens and you end up in court, who will thank you.....only the Dark Side. Who will end up in jail - you will.
Eicr Rubber Cable
- Thread starter smickster
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
Providing all tests are satisfactory and a visual inspection does not show deterioration then I feel C3 is appropriate, requires improvement and recommend that it should be replaced without delay due to its age.
C1 and C2 used to frequently these days just to get work in a lot of cases.
C1 and C2 used to frequently these days just to get work in a lot of cases.
Riggy
Senior Member
Where did you find your definition of C3?
Any precedent for your "Who will end up in jail"?
He's a Wookie, they are normally ripping people apart, I thought this was a mild response! 
Think I would argue C2, all the VIR cable I've come across has always been knackered at the accessories and therefore represents IMHO a very real threat to the household particularly if someone starts doing any work around the house, which in the case of a house being sold, is very likely. Even all the banging and crashing of moving furniture, carpets etc etc stands a good chance of messing things up. C2 is "potentially dangerous" and in my opinion, cable of this type and age is exactly that. C3 " improvement recommended" just seems a bit too weak given what we know about VIR. I agree with Steve that C1 and C2 get used too much in general, but in this case I think it is appropiate. Chances are, that given the cable is so old, it's also on re-wireable fuses with no RCD protection, so potential for starting fires is also relatively high
Even complying with the 10% removal of accessories to inspect is likley to cause problems due to flexing of the old, dried out insulation.
As for legalities, if I bought a house certified as Satisfactory and found that if I went to change a socket, the insulation fell off the cable or I had to re-wire half the house to get rid of the old VIR I would certainly be very un-impressed and would consider legal action.
Even complying with the 10% removal of accessories to inspect is likley to cause problems due to flexing of the old, dried out insulation.
As for legalities, if I bought a house certified as Satisfactory and found that if I went to change a socket, the insulation fell off the cable or I had to re-wire half the house to get rid of the old VIR I would certainly be very un-impressed and would consider legal action.
I think the small print on the certificate states satisfactory assessment has been given providing items under observations are rectified.
I have been to many properties where rubber is in use and instantly given an unsatisfactory assessment due to the condition of the cable, I have also had an installation where nothing has ever been touched or replaced on the socket circuit and the cable was like new, however the lights where the heat rises was a different story.
I would give an unsatisfactory assessment because the bigger picture as Binky say's is most likely other parts of the installation won't meet the requirements either. Code 3's can still give an overall assessment as unsatisfactory.
I have been to many properties where rubber is in use and instantly given an unsatisfactory assessment due to the condition of the cable, I have also had an installation where nothing has ever been touched or replaced on the socket circuit and the cable was like new, however the lights where the heat rises was a different story.
I would give an unsatisfactory assessment because the bigger picture as Binky say's is most likely other parts of the installation won't meet the requirements either. Code 3's can still give an overall assessment as unsatisfactory.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 11,018
- Reaction score
- 0
Quite often you will find with an old installation with VIR it will be a family that has lived in property since it was new family has left home and the owners just have never rewired. If you get a new family moving in using the installation as a family would it just will not last and really could be a risk especially if it was a TT installation. Not sure how a 3036 fuse would stand up on VIR short.
From my understanding C3 = Requires/Recommend Improvement.
I think NIC recommend more than 2-3 C3 is unsatissfactory assessment.
I think NIC recommend more than 2-3 C3 is unsatissfactory assessment.
C3 doesn't comply with 17th edition ie it's an observation, but no more, like no RCD on lighting circuits, accessory switches worn but working, etc
C2 requires improvement ie not good, but not immediately dangerous, eg undersize main bonding, spur off spur on sockets
that's my understanding of it, but I haven't read the guidelines for a while. Preferred the older 4 category system.
VIR can pass test, it's just unlikely not to have an issue somewhere, hence, going back to the original post I wouldn't give it C3 as discusssed above.
This discussion is in danger of getting into splitting hairs, so I think it's time to leave it as it is, and allow people to make thier own decissions.
Be careful out there, and happy fathers day to those with children.
C2 requires improvement ie not good, but not immediately dangerous, eg undersize main bonding, spur off spur on sockets
that's my understanding of it, but I haven't read the guidelines for a while. Preferred the older 4 category system.
VIR can pass test, it's just unlikely not to have an issue somewhere, hence, going back to the original post I wouldn't give it C3 as discusssed above.
This discussion is in danger of getting into splitting hairs, so I think it's time to leave it as it is, and allow people to make thier own decissions.
Be careful out there, and happy fathers day to those with children.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 14,329
- Reaction score
- 977
Just to add (don't think this has already been mentioned)...
But the observations bit of the report (e.g. section K of page 397, BS7671) has area for observation comments and/or items needing "Further Investigation Required"
As mentioned on bullet point '9' over the page (398)......
We all know that on most PIR's only a sample of accessories are inspected...
there is nothing to stop you recommending a full inspection of any VIR circuits to establish the true condition of ALL cables and ALL accessories conected...
AND as Binky pointed out a couple of posts back...
You can always state that your recommended next inspection date is as short as you like....
e.g.
You could comment that from initial sample inspection VIR circuit IR tests appear satisfactory...
BUT you recommended further full investigation and inspection of said circuits..
With a full re-inspection of the installation within 3 months following these investigations!!
Sometimes you cannot easily correctly code an observation or categorically say it is satisfactory OR unsatisfactory without doing more comprehensive inspection & testing...
You are the competent person undertaking the inspection...
If you need further time and investigation to complete your evaluation then note it down...
there is NO law that says every installation must be fully and accurately assessed at the first visit!
opcorn
lot of football on the telly at the moment!!!
:C
But the observations bit of the report (e.g. section K of page 397, BS7671) has area for observation comments and/or items needing "Further Investigation Required"
As mentioned on bullet point '9' over the page (398)......
We all know that on most PIR's only a sample of accessories are inspected...
there is nothing to stop you recommending a full inspection of any VIR circuits to establish the true condition of ALL cables and ALL accessories conected...
AND as Binky pointed out a couple of posts back...
You can always state that your recommended next inspection date is as short as you like....
e.g.
You could comment that from initial sample inspection VIR circuit IR tests appear satisfactory...
BUT you recommended further full investigation and inspection of said circuits..
With a full re-inspection of the installation within 3 months following these investigations!!
Sometimes you cannot easily correctly code an observation or categorically say it is satisfactory OR unsatisfactory without doing more comprehensive inspection & testing...
You are the competent person undertaking the inspection...
If you need further time and investigation to complete your evaluation then note it down...
there is NO law that says every installation must be fully and accurately assessed at the first visit!
opcorn lot of football on the telly at the moment!!!
:C
good point Specs
C2 no doubt about it. A larger sample size is required rather than calling it a C3. There is a difference in a sample size and 'further investigation required' as detailed in GN3. The sampling procedure should be modified if there is reason to doubt the integrity of the installation and the size increased further if more problems arise. It is what the job is about. C3 if there are loads that cannot be located or cables are cut off in the db and have not been removed etc. (EWR 1989) If a cable is rotted what more is there to investigate?
The sample size should be placed at the hands of the person ordering the work and carried out at the time of test. In this case not a C3
The sample size should be placed at the hands of the person ordering the work and carried out at the time of test. In this case not a C3
the doctor
Part P Doctor ™
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
- Messages
- 580
- Reaction score
- 1
Hello there.....
The time line is thus... give or take a decade
Lead covered cabling from the start to around 1940
VIR ( vulcanised indian rubber) from the start to around 1950
TRS (tough rubber sheathed) from around 1950 to 1960
PVC imperial size around 1960 to 1970
PVC metric 1970 to the present
It is surprising, when you come across some old stuff how good it still is. That said, if you disturb some of it, then the fun starts as the insulation crumbles away :yellow card
The time line is thus... give or take a decade
Lead covered cabling from the start to around 1940
VIR ( vulcanised indian rubber) from the start to around 1950
TRS (tough rubber sheathed) from around 1950 to 1960
PVC imperial size around 1960 to 1970
PVC metric 1970 to the present
It is surprising, when you come across some old stuff how good it still is. That said, if you disturb some of it, then the fun starts as the insulation crumbles away :yellow card
just done a CU install and added some new circuits to a house that still has lead sheath in use,
phase staged job and all circuits are being renewed on a staged basis as and when,
the lead cables all gave ok-ish results on IR, and ELI scraped in, wouldnt like to put them on an RCD though,
I didnt disconnect or move them for cont testing, I only IR'd them for nosey-ness,,,,,,,
only the new circuits on the new CU, original install being left as-is until such times..........
certed new CU only.
phase staged job and all circuits are being renewed on a staged basis as and when,
the lead cables all gave ok-ish results on IR, and ELI scraped in, wouldnt like to put them on an RCD though,
I didnt disconnect or move them for cont testing, I only IR'd them for nosey-ness,,,,,,,
only the new circuits on the new CU, original install being left as-is until such times..........
certed new CU only.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Steptoe,
What is meant by 'OK ish' for IR test? Did they comply or not? More to the point, what would you have done if there was a N/E fault or the insulation was found to have fallen from the conductors of the lead covered circuits?
Why would you not put them on an RCD if they were compliant?
It seems that you carried out a Zs without first proving R1+R2 (polarity) as you say you didn't disconnect or move them. Unless you used the long-lead method as a minimum you would have had to at least put a link from the protective device to the earth terminal.
If it was a 'staged job' I would have thought that a preliminary inspection would have given these lead circuits a little priority. I take it that a EICR was not carried out prior the job starting?
Just a thought
What is meant by 'OK ish' for IR test? Did they comply or not? More to the point, what would you have done if there was a N/E fault or the insulation was found to have fallen from the conductors of the lead covered circuits?
Why would you not put them on an RCD if they were compliant?
It seems that you carried out a Zs without first proving R1+R2 (polarity) as you say you didn't disconnect or move them. Unless you used the long-lead method as a minimum you would have had to at least put a link from the protective device to the earth terminal.
If it was a 'staged job' I would have thought that a preliminary inspection would have given these lead circuits a little priority. I take it that a EICR was not carried out prior the job starting?
Just a thought
Incidentally, if a lead covered cable is in reasonable condition and passes all relevant tests then the only 'problem' is age. And as far as I can tell, age is one thing and a faulty cable that fails the test procedures is another.
The best thing to do in this situation would be to indicate the assessed age of the wiring and recommend a shorter time period between tests. Or take them out of service and explain why they passed all tests, the cable is not falling apart but you want to change them at a cost of...£XXX!
C3 as non-compliant with 17th but compliant under a previous issue of the wiring regulations but only if all the tests have been passed. That give us a C2 ...no if it passes all tests. C1 No chance.
The best thing to do in this situation would be to indicate the assessed age of the wiring and recommend a shorter time period between tests. Or take them out of service and explain why they passed all tests, the cable is not falling apart but you want to change them at a cost of...£XXX!
C3 as non-compliant with 17th but compliant under a previous issue of the wiring regulations but only if all the tests have been passed. That give us a C2 ...no if it passes all tests. C1 No chance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I can understand Steptoe's situation.
If you go to carry out an EICR on a property and find that there are VIR or lead sheathed cables you will obviously be very wary of them - due to their age the recommendation is that they should be rewired. Now, if they are also starting to show signs that they are starting to degrade then you're not going to start moving them around, as you would when replacing a consumer unit, because of the potential of further damage to the installation and you should issue a danger notice.
It is then up to the customer as to how they proceed...
If they want a new consumer unit and full rewire immedeately then it's easy... Rip it out and start from scratch and everything will be shiny and new in a week or so...
If they want it doing over an extended period due to the lack of funds , or whatever, then the only way to proceed is by fitting a new cunsumer unit beside the existing one and rewiring the individual circuits as and when the funds allow.
If you go to carry out an EICR on a property and find that there are VIR or lead sheathed cables you will obviously be very wary of them - due to their age the recommendation is that they should be rewired. Now, if they are also starting to show signs that they are starting to degrade then you're not going to start moving them around, as you would when replacing a consumer unit, because of the potential of further damage to the installation and you should issue a danger notice.
It is then up to the customer as to how they proceed...
If they want a new consumer unit and full rewire immedeately then it's easy... Rip it out and start from scratch and everything will be shiny and new in a week or so...
If they want it doing over an extended period due to the lack of funds , or whatever, then the only way to proceed is by fitting a new cunsumer unit beside the existing one and rewiring the individual circuits as and when the funds allow.
If wiring is sound, then 'age' does not enter the equation. I'll not bore anyone by repeating what I have written above. You cannot, and should not, (in my view) issue a danger notice based on the age of the wiring. If there are signs of the wiring disintegrating and failing tests, then of course take action. In this case however, Steptoe says that tests were passed (I can only assume that the wiring was not falling to bits) . If it was thought that the existing wiring was falling apart then the wiring would not pass and should be call a fail (C2).
My concern is that a Zs seems to have been carried out without the cpc being proven (or dead polarity for that matter)
I would have made (as Steptoe probably has) an initial EICR and assessed the situation. For all I know I may have come to the same conclusion regarding prioritising the work. It would depend on the condition of the entire installation.
This is just my take on it as written above by Steptoe. No offence intended.
My concern is that a Zs seems to have been carried out without the cpc being proven (or dead polarity for that matter)
I would have made (as Steptoe probably has) an initial EICR and assessed the situation. For all I know I may have come to the same conclusion regarding prioritising the work. It would depend on the condition of the entire installation.
This is just my take on it as written above by Steptoe. No offence intended.
The over all recommendation would be...
'Satisfactory' as the installation passes all tests.
However, due to the age of the wiring and the non-compliance of the installation with respect to the current edition of BS7671 as amended (No RCD's) it is strongly recommended that an EICR be carried out in the next six months in order to monitor the aging system. I further recommend that no extra loading be placed on the circuits, or additions/alterations be made to the existing wring.
Or words to that effect. As I said, just my view and may not be the right one. We have to sign the paper work
'Satisfactory' as the installation passes all tests.
However, due to the age of the wiring and the non-compliance of the installation with respect to the current edition of BS7671 as amended (No RCD's) it is strongly recommended that an EICR be carried out in the next six months in order to monitor the aging system. I further recommend that no extra loading be placed on the circuits, or additions/alterations be made to the existing wring.
Or words to that effect. As I said, just my view and may not be the right one. We have to sign the paper work
Similar threads
