Jump to content

DONT STAY LURKING AS A GUEST,

JOIN TEF AND BENEFIT FROM MEMBERSHIP:

CLICK HERE TO JOIN.
middle age spark

Neutral earth fault

Recommended Posts

Murdoch

I bet this so called NICEIC advice was given out verbally ..... so no come back to them

 

teflon coated BS ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Hudson
8 hours ago, middle age spark said:

Hi all,

Just an update he's got no case to answer,our HR phoned the nic & they said it was just bad practice.why do we bother doing a proper job then ??

So carrotted off at the minute. 

 

Thank you for coming back to update us Middle Age Spark.  

 

Unfortunately the problem with this, as I see it is; "The wrong people, using the wrong communication method, to seek advice from the wrong people".  You need someone who is qualified and competent putting a written report to an independent advisor who is more qualified and experienced in assessing the real risks and dangers of electrical negligence.  I would bet HR dept haven't got a clue about exactly what question they should be asking and it probably just went to a customer service clerk, who has a pre-set list of answers with a checklist of all possible questions they expect to get. Without a written copy of the actual question asked and a copy of the answer given and the names of the persons involved in the Q&A, you have proved nothing and have absolutely no idea about what has or hasn't been discussed.

 

I think this is just as much a problem of your companies making, in how they have approached their investigations not just the NIC trying to avoid committing to anything. Bottom line comes back down to who has the biggest legal balls to put their neck on line without any fear of counter claim.  Your company have bottled out in my opinion.

 

Doc H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidewinder

Any circuit modification must comply with EAWR.

Your employers defence is Reg 29.

Your employers justification for a defence under Reg 29 is full compliance with BS7671 &  the use of trained, qualified & competent staff.

Do his modifications comply with the current version of BS7671, in full?

Does he complete the relevant certification, correctly as required be BS7671?

NB there can be no LIM, on a certificate, LIM is only acceptable on a report.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix
3 hours ago, Sidewinder said:

NB there can be no LIM, on a certificate, LIM is only acceptable on a report.

 

 

I beg to differ with that wording, though I would however agree with "marking LIM is not an acceptable get out for providing the result of a required test on a certificate"

 

An example, say an office is being re-arranged, some filling space is being removed (they file everything electronically now) to make space for some extra desks, this requires a lot of rows of lighting (each on their own cirucit) to be extended by one fitting each. So you'd do X amount of minor works to cover each circuit worked on, but you'd have to mark the L-N  insulation resistance box as lim, as to disconnect all the fittings on X rows to carry this test out is clearly non sensical and risks introducing extra faults, as well as probably taking a god day to do.

 

Now say you have also installed a new socket ring off the same board, under the same contract, for the dado trunking where the desks are going, you need to fill out an EIC for this, it would be a waste of certificates and time to fill out the X minor minors when you are all ready issueing an EIC, so you include the results for the lighting circuit alterations on the EIC, and you are careful to word the extent of works covered box to reflect accuratly the works carried out. Result is that you now have, quite legitimatly, LIM marked on the EIC for the lighting circuits L-N Insulation resistance, however if the cert also came back with that filled in for L-N IR of the new sockets ring, it would get chucked back because the test is required for a new cirucit and you cannot get out of that fact with LIM

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
4 hours ago, Sidewinder said:

 

NB there can be no LIM, on a certificate, LIM is only acceptable on a report.

 

 

The chap who we are debating, isn't doing certificates ................

 

As as for there can be no LIM .................... sometimes, in the real world this is the ONLY option ..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix

pressed enter too soon

Edited by Phoenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix

(It wont let me re-edit the previous post)

 

Getting back to the subject at hand,

 

Its always going to be thorney one..... what is acceptable as temporary repair, now its alright to sit there and claim that it is no less than what would be acceptable as a permanent one, but its perhaps a different story when you are out miles away at 2 am on a sunday morning, now I am not saying that removing RCD protection should be the first port of call, but at some point, sometimes a quick mental risk assessment has to be be made.... and balance the risk of what you are doing with the risk of leaving the area without power untill a better hour (which might be significant if it were a stairwell lighting in a multi occupancy residential building, once the emergecny fittings have run down).

 

The other issue is having done this, one needs to ensure that they go back, but it can be a problem with housing associations and  managment companies; their help desk is authorised to place orders for call out repairs out of hours, but daytime works run can run through a differnt chain of command, and this seems to rely on prompting from the property in question ringing up and asking for whatever to be fixed, now if everything has been left appearing to be as normal, perhaps the order to return will not come, unless you activly chase it with the managment company and detail the situation to them. So it can be advantagous to leave something not working that will prove an anoyance. I.e. Lightly loaded sockets ring, had to break the ring to isolate a damaged cable, didnt have a 20A rcbo for board so had to leave it on 32A, if one of the sockets was behind TV, purposely don't connect the socket back to the one enegrised leg behind the socket, leave both in (separate) connectors. So that they are bound to insist that someone comes back to finsih the repair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidewinder

Well, I totally disagree with both yourself @Phoenix, & @Murdoch on the use of LIM on certification.

It is not acceptable in the wording of BS7671, nor the IET guidance.

If there is a test that you cannot do, on a new circuit, then you cannot use LIM.

If there is a test that you cannot do on an existing circuit following modification, then you cannot use LIM, you must, use an alternative way of wording it.

 

I can see what you are saying @Phoenix in your earlier post, but, LIM is not acceptable, put N/A, N/V or refer to a note by all means, but not LIM, even though it is a limitation.

 

I get that in the real world there are limitations, but, it is how you document these that needs care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix

I would be hesitant in using N/A for the L-N insulation resistance, as clearly the parameter of LN insulation is applicable to the circuit , what isn't applicable is the requirement to test it in those situations.

 

 In my head I consider N/V more to do with a quanity which is inspected, rather than tested, e.g. the supplier's fuse size, carrier says 80A on it, so it goes down as "80 (N/V)", I suppose I could use N/T (not tested) for items where the test is not required or even "---" as per the R2 box which is not needed when R1+R2 is provided.

 

It just goes against the grain marking it as N/A when clearly it is applicable but I see what you are saying, LIM suggests its a required test but it was excluded for some reason, when what we are trying to say is "Test not relevant/required for the works carried out"

 

Might make myself a note to discuss this one with the NICEIC chap in a few months when he does his annual visit in a few months time

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
1 hour ago, Sidewinder said:

Well, I totally disagree with both yourself @Phoenix, & @Murdoch on the use of LIM on certification.

It is not acceptable in the wording of BS7671, nor the IET guidance.

If there is a test that you cannot do, on a new circuit, then you cannot use LIM.

If there is a test that you cannot do on an existing circuit following modification, then you cannot use LIM, you must, use an alternative way of wording it.

 

I can see what you are saying @Phoenix in your earlier post, but, LIM is not acceptable, put N/A, N/V or refer to a note by all means, but not LIM, even though it is a limitation.

 

I get that in the real world there are limitations, but, it is how you document these that needs care.

 

 

So .... you can’t have a lim but you can put n/v or n/a 

 

it all means the same .... the test couldn’t be done ..........

 

using lim  could be backed up with a comment .....

Edited by Murdoch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidewinder

I think we kind of agree @Murdoch, but not on exactly how it is documented.

 

To reinforce this from my point when I was teaching & examining C&G, I was told no LIM on a cert, OK on a report, but NOT on a cert.

 

N/A is a valid entry, because, for example, installing a cert in an office would not include a special location from Part 7, so would attract N/A in those areas of the schedule of inspections.

 

If the DNO fuse of a supply is sealed and not accessible, then officially we are not at liberty to remove this and verify it, so we can make an educated guess & put NV (N/V) for not verified, or simply put NV, N/V and add a note that the fuse carrier was sealed and thus not accessible.

 

Whilst this is a limitation, it is not supposed to be recorded using LIM IYKWIM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch

Hum ..... so you have changed a fuse board and you can’t access the connections to , say the oven .... there is no isolator .....what do you put for Zs ? And polarity ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.