EICR Codes

[westward10]

I know but in #2 you say you weren't sure if you would Code it when it is a non-compliant means of installation.

 

[Julie.]

I know but in #2 you say you wouldn't Code it when it is a non-compliant means of installation.

Correct.

Nor would I code other things because they are non-compliant, I would code them if they represented an immediate danger, a potential danger, or a recommended improvement (Or FI etc).

There isn't a requirement or option on an EICR for "not compliant" nor should there be.

Old wiring colours are non-compliant but Prima facie I wouldn't code that, Plastic CU again isn't compliant, but again in-itself I wouldn't automatically code that, and so on.

The idea of a periodic report is to make a qualified assessment if the installation is safe/suitable. That doesn't mean it has to be 100% compliant with the latest regulations.

As said earlier on in the thread, the same item, given no RCD protection would attract a different code.

 

[westward10]

I agree the new Coding system is poor the old Catergories were better. Having said that the cable is not installed in compliance with BS7671 and comparing it with old conductor colours and all insulated consumer units isn't relevant, that is a case of a previous compliance no longer satisfying current requirements. This cable installation has never been compliant, the fact it has rcd protection is irrelevant.

 

[Julie.]

I agree the new Coding system is poor the old Catergories were better. Having said that the cable is not installed in compliance with BS7671 and comparing it with old conductor colours and all insulated consumer units isn't relevant, that is a case of a previous compliance no longer satisfying current requirements. This cable installation has never been compliant, the fact it has rcd protection is irrelevant.

I would disagree, how safe or unsafe something is isn't contingent on whether is was compliant or not previously, but wholly on does it or does it not present a danger.

Having or not having rcd protection changes this significantly.

 

[westward10]

Does it present a danger or not well we cannot anticipate that but following the requirements of BS7671 we would hope this danger is significantly reduced which is why EICRs are carried out. Item 5.9 of the condition report inspection schedule is relevant here asking whether wiring systems are appropriate etc......
Regulation 522.8.10 clearly states that unless a cable has an earthed armour or sheath then additional precautions are required such as duct or conduit, it does not suggest rcd protection as an alternative therefore some level of Coding in the Report is required.

 

[Julie.]

Yes, and I would note the observation, but for me I would be unlikely to code it, if you would wish to then fine, no issue with that.

Dot see why you are getting upset.

Opinions vary.

Non compliance does not mandate a code, the risk/danger level does.

But anyone is free to code as they see fit, under the existing system, there is no standard (unlike mots and so on) hence why eicrs are so varied in quality.

 

[brianmoooore]

Is there any evidence that this cable is NOT in a duct?

 

[westward10]

Yes, and I would note the observation, but for me I would be unlikely to code it, if you would wish to then fine, no issue with that.

Dot see why you are getting upset.

Opinions vary.

Non compliance does not mandate a code, the risk/danger level does.

But anyone is free to code as they see fit, under the existing system, there is no standard (unlike mots and so on) hence why eicrs are so varied in quality.

No one is upset here just pointing the OP in the right direction.

 

[mattg4321]

Is there any evidence that this cable is NOT in a duct?

Yes, the fact that I can see it disappearing into the ground with no sign of a duct, even after digging out a small amount of ground around it!!

 

[DefyG]

Yes, the fact that I can see it disappearing into the ground with no sign of a duct, even after digging out a small amount of ground around it!!

To establish if it is in a duct or deep enough to be unlikely to damaged by a garden fork maybe it should be an FI (Further Investigation)!

 

[loz2754]

To establish if it is in a duct or deep enough to be unlikely to damaged by a garden fork maybe it should be an FI (Further Investigation)!

If it was in a duct, it would have to be ducted all the way up to the surface, therefore no further investigation necessary.

 

[Julie.]

If it was in a duct, it would have to be ducted all the way up to the surface, therefore no further investigation necessary.

Agree.

It would be reasonable to assume no duct at any point if it doesn't have a duct at the points you inspect, as it's a simple exists/doesn't exist thing.

The decision on code is completely up to the inspector, the napit book and the safety first guide present guidance for directions based on level of danger, but they don't agree in many cases, and of course don't cover everything.

Until there is a proper mandated assessment and maintenance of standards for inspectors - just like driving test examiners, or mot assessors then there actually is no absolute right or wrong.

The best is to follow the principles outlined in the napit guide and gn3.

 

[DefyG]

I think the OP has established there isn't a duct but only after already carrying out Further Investigation by digging down some!

 

[mattg4321]

Now that we have that subject well and truly covered, what about a TT installation with Ze of 1000ohms, tested in the middle of summer. Rod and connection etc looking in good condition.

Theoretically a 30ma RCD still disconnects, but I’m not sure I’d be happy with no code.

Not a problem I ever expect to come across round here though. It’s usually pretty easy to get well under 50ohms with even one rod. Usually more like 10-20ohms.

 

[Julie.]

Now that we have that subject well and truly covered, what about a TT installation with Ze of 1000ohms, tested in the middle of summer. Rod and connection etc looking in good condition.

Theoretically a 30ma RCD still disconnects, but I’m not sure I’d be happy with no code.

Not a problem I ever expect to come across round here though. It’s usually pretty easy to get well under 50ohms with even one rod. Usually more like 10-20ohms.

I wouldn't either, I would definitely go C2.

It's when it's borderline on 200~400 ohm I would go C3 , less than that no code.