Service head EICR

Lister1987 said:

You say that but they do have an affect on how the inspector would perceive risk, it's why we have an external influence code for persons; from children up to skilled person.

Does it make me a bad engineer for going outside of the guides and documents we're told to work to, or does it make me a more con-che-n-tious (can't spell the word) engineer for looking at the bigger picture and wanting to have a better understanding as to why things are the way they are, why we have cutouts like these and why a missing cover is acceptable on 1 area but not another; I'm thinking diverted neutral currents going into the property and that section that is accessible becoming live, sure it's s million to one chance but so long as I can say I've done what I can to sort it, then I sleep better, if the DNO want to shrug and walk away, that's on them.

Click to expand...

In a house full of bonded metalwork and earthed appliances, it's hard to see how covering up that small piece of exposed metal will be of benefit should the DNO's neutral go OC.

Question to Op did you find any other deviations when doing the EICR ?
If so do you want to share on here?

hasel5 said:

This is seen at a vast majority of cutouts and is normal practice. And TBH it does make me worry that some people that are carrying out EICRs don't have the understanding of what is required and how to code the so called issues

Click to expand...

Indeed. Like in this photo:



This is no different from a safety point of view to the OP's photo. No code. No comment necessary.

Lister1987 said:

You say that but they do have an affect on how the inspector would perceive risk, it's why we have an external influence code for persons; from children up to skilled person.

Does it make me a bad engineer for going outside of the guides and documents we're told to work to, or does it make me a more con-che-n-tious (can't spell the word) engineer for looking at the bigger picture and wanting to have a better understanding as to why things are the way they are, why we have cutouts like these and why a missing cover is acceptable on 1 area but not another; I'm thinking diverted neutral currents going into the property and that section that is accessible becoming live, sure it's s million to one chance but so long as I can say I've done what I can to sort it, then I sleep better, if the DNO want to shrug and walk away, that's on them.

Click to expand...

It is a no code. Not even an observation. Not an issue. No potential dangerous Situation. No need to contact DNO.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that I am concerned, but not about the cutout,

I am concerned and gobsmacked that anyone carrying out EICRs would not know this Was normal for a cutout. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Paignton pete said:

It is a no code. Not even an observation. Not an issue. No potential dangerous Situation. No need to contact DNO.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that I am concerned, but not about the cutout,

I am concerned and gobsmacked that anyone carrying out EICRs would not know this Was normal for a cutout. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Click to expand...

I know it's true that not any one of us sparkies knows everything and has come across every type of installation practice, but this reinforces a comment I, and others, have made in several different threads on the subject of EICRs and who should be doing them.
And that is, inspection and testing requires, not only technical knowledge gained through formal training, but actual experience of the types of installation that you are inspecting. This kind of experience only comes with time, and preferably working alongside someone who has that experience.
Without such experience, how can a person pass judgement and award an appropriate code?

This current thread is a case in point. To me, and to several others who have commented, it's obvious what the recommendation should be, and if you have to ask.......

hasel5 said:

Question to Op did you find any other deviations when doing the EICR ?
If so do you want to share on here?

Click to expand...

Apart from that there is no RCD protection on all circuits except one (kitchen ring). Circuit supplying bathroom (light, extractor, shaver socket) no rcd and no supplementary bonding present.
Client willing to upgrade consumer unit
Rest of the installation is fine with all visuals test result satisfactory.

SJD said:

So what about this one:

View attachment 83535

Apparently a new meter was fitted couple of months ago, and it seems the meter fitter taped up the earth block, rather than fit the insert/cover. The tape has now come off. The customer is sure that the cover was not missing before.

My guess is the part perhaps fell of during fuse removal, fell to the concrete floor below and cracked.

Click to expand...

I'd say that once the service head is compromised compared to how it was originally installed, then it should be at least raised with the DNO so that they can decide whether the integrity as a whole is up to their standards - since it does belong to them. That way they do the risk assessment and take responsibility.

On an EICR you are ticking to say the service head is satisfactory (or not) after all - and without further investigation I'd not be 100% sure that there was no access to an actual live part in your case....

One I raised with the DNO just yesterday



where the shroud is coming away and although it's "only" the PEN stranded that is visible that may not be the case in the future - and I'd have no idea whether a long thin finger could reach other more dangerous parts.

Because the DNO equipment (service heads in particular) is usually kept at a distance from official training (at least at domestic level), it's sometimes hard to gain the experience or information necessary to do a proper risk assessment.

I'd happily do a course with the DNO that gave me some more insight - perhaps with the right to risk assess and pull fuses officially when needed (with temporary reseal to be checked by DNO staff if necessary) - and quicker access to resources when a problem occurs without having to wait in line on 105 with the householders who's kettle isn't working...

Dartlec said:

Because the DNO equipment (service heads in particular) is usually kept at a distance from official training (at least at domestic level), it's sometimes hard to gain the experience or information necessary to do a proper risk assessment.

I'd happily do a course with the DNO that gave me some more insight - perhaps with the right to risk assess and pull fuses officially when needed (with temporary reseal to be checked by DNO staff if necessary) - and quicker access to resources when a problem occurs without having to wait in line on 105 with the householders who's kettle isn't working...

Click to expand...

If they trained and gave you their blessing then they'd be liable when something goes wrong, and when half your networks is so far past its service life its in many cases quite literally falling apart that's a big ask.

Much, much nicer for them and their shareholders to maintain the pretence that nobody ever touches it even though we all know its BS.

Never seen a non dno sparky wearing the official ppe for working on a cut out, ie rubber gauntlets, leather over gauntlets, full face visor, and non combustible clothing. Not saying dno empoyees always do.......

i find that the most effective PPE is an apprentice. asuming your role of mentor, you stand behind him, but not in contact, as he pulls the fuse.

telectrix said:

i find that the most effective PPE is an apprentice. asuming your role of mentor, you stand behind him, but not in contact, as he pulls the fuse.

Click to expand...

Did you not use to have Darth Maul, Darth Tyrannus and Darth Vader as your apprentices at one point?

Paignton pete said:

It is a no code. Not even an observation. Not an issue. No potential dangerous Situation. No need to contact DNO.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that I am concerned, but not about the cutout,

I am concerned and gobsmacked that anyone carrying out EICRs would not know this Was normal for a cutout. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Click to expand...

To me this highlights an Issue I have with that whole section(1.0) of the inspection schedule.

It is not the responsibility of the electrician, we have no right to work on it yet we are supposed to have the knowledge to diagnose faults and record them and are expected to report them to the DNO.

This is their equipment, they charge for its use and should be responsible for monitoring its condition, you know, maybe a cursory once over once a year whilst reading the meter. ?

The dozens of interactions I've had with DNO faults have all been billed to the customer for my time, is this right?

Now back to the OP, is it fair to expect an inspector to have in depth and historic knowledge of the many, many intake and metering configurations and devices and be able to competently assess their condition?

It's not straight forward as no sane spark is going to start work on an installation with a smouldering intake but an exposed terminal?, a cracked cover?, unsupported tails?

It would be an interesting test case if for every certificate we issued we invoiced the DNO an inspection fee.

Rant over.

Let me think said:

Did you not use to have Darth Maul, Darth Tyrannus and Darth Vader as your apprentices at one point?

Click to expand...

I taught them well, young Jedi. they are now all on the Dark side (of the moon, with Syd Barrett).