c2 or c3

[markc123]

This is a genuine question mark, would you not retest the whole installation if you pulled the old board apart and completely recon formed the layout of the board and added rcd protection, but if you replaced the board you would,after just doing a eicr

If i ammended the board - which like you, i don't think will be possible or i replaced the board then i would obviouslly do a EIC. So yes in answer to your question, of course i would carry out the full test procedure.

If i replaced the breakers for rcbo's id carry on with the EICR.

 

[chopper76]

I concur, so rcbos are looking increasing more cost effective when time is also taken into consideration

 

[polo1]

I can't believe some on here would code this a C3. If we accept that it was installed less than six moths ago, then it does not comply with the current regs and therefore, imho, the report has to be "unsatisfactory". If not, then why bother working to the regs at all????????

Regards.

 

[richy3333]

By what you've said thus far glasgow, I dont understand how you surmise the rewire was around 6 months ago?

Could be C3's and C2's. Is there supplementary bonding in the bathroom?

 

[glasgospark]

By what you've said thus far glasgow, I dont understand how you surmise the rewire was around 6 months ago?

Could be C3's and C2's. Is there supplementary bonding in the bathroom?

i was verbally told by customer , no test results ect, for all i know hes lying just to get the test passed , by saying what he thinks would

 

[richy3333]

Ahh, OK. sort of backfires on him then Throw the BGB at him

 

[Adam W]

I can't believe some on here would code this a C3. If we accept that it was installed less than six moths ago, then it does not comply with the current regs and therefore, imho, the report has to be "unsatisfactory". If not, then why bother working to the regs at all????????

Regards.

Because it doesn't present any danger, which is what C1 and C2 are for. There is no requirement to upgrade every installation to the latest edition, and bringing out a new edition doesn't suddenly make an installation unsafe. It seems a little unclear as to when this CU was installed, but either way it's inappropriate to say if it was installed in 2007 then it's fine but if it was installed in 2009 then it's dangerous.

If the customer is lying to get a certificate then they probably think it's better to say it was installed recently.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

If it was rewired six months ago, then it has to be C2, a risk of danger exists. I will try and explain. The requirements of the regs have evolved to reduce the risk of injury etc, so because this install has not been done to current requirements (which were in force 6 months ago) certain safety features that are required have not been fitted (RCD's), therefore the installation leaves the user at an increased risk of injury, over and above what he would have normally expected had the job been done to the correct standards required.

Cheers.............Howard

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Maybe if there's an abnormally high Zs, but if it's TN-S it should be low enough to disconnect in time.

Remember an EICR is there to report dangerous conditions, not to document how you would have done it differently, eg you can't code something just because it's a bit of a dog's dinner.

of course

but lets face it...how many times have we seen a 2 awarded to ...lets say BS3036 C/Us...without checking disconnection times have been met and/or correct fusewire has been used....not to mention the general condition...(which in some cases may merit a 1)
no...the point i was getting at here is that a TN system may be high (Ze)....just because its distributers facility dont mean anything....

 

[p11jor]

Have you established if the cables may be over 50mm in partitions etc?

 

[Adam W]

Of course it needs to comply with maximum values, but if they do comply there isn't necessarily any need for an rcd.

If the installation was installed correctly to 16th/15th edition with all bonding in place and using EEBADS as fault protection you could probably even get away with listing the lack of rcd as a recommendation.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Of course it needs to comply with maximum values, but if they do comply there isn't necessarily any need for an rcd.

If the installation was installed correctly to 16th/15th edition with all bonding in place and using EEBADS as fault protection you could probably even get away with listing the lack of rcd as a recommendation.

no....sockets to be used for outdoor equipment
yep

 

[glasgospark]

Have you established if the cables may be over 50mm in partitions etc?

lim....

 

[p11jor]

I have just tested a local 5star hotel 90 beds.

No rcd protection at all, I rated it c3 as it dosnt comply due to alterations a couple years back. There Is no danger present whatsoever as will be proved on visual inspection & test results. There is no way this should be a c2.

There was a fuse spare in a bathroom close to the shower
I rated this c2, as this could cause danger from water jets.

And lastly my only c1 was a polarity reverse as there is danger present.

One of the lads on our site (spark) was saying something the other day about a loose connection and he said its alright though the Rcd will get it won't it.....some people need to learn what the rcd is there for

 

[p11jor]

lim....

Defo got to be a c3 then as it can't be proven that this is "dangerous"