Eicr help

[Skys]

After some advice please. Been to carry out eicr today, property is only one year old. No problems on any out going circuits from consumer unit. But tails run well over 6 meters and are buried less than 50mm with no additional or mechanical protection. This been designed to 17th edition I gave a c2, company I’m working for have rang nic. Who are saying it only warrants a c3 has it’s not potentially dangerous. How can something that should have failed initial verification but got passed suddenly be satisfactory? Surly original installation cert would be fraudulent really?

 

[buzzlightyear]

Been to carry out eicr today, property is only one year old

why are you testing it when its that old ?

 

[Ian1981]

After some advice please. Been to carry out eicr today, property is only one year old. No problems on any out going circuits from consumer unit. But tails run well over 6 meters and are buried less than 50mm with no additional or mechanical protection. This been designed to 17th edition I gave a c2, company I’m working for have rang nic. Who are saying it only warrants a c3 has it’s not potentially dangerous. How can something that should have failed initial verification but got passed suddenly be satisfactory? Surly original installation cert would be fraudulent really?

How can you be sure that the tails have no mechanical protection?

 

[Skys]

It’s for a housing association change of occupation.
[automerge]1574887169[/automerge]
Can see tails leaving meter cupboard Into cavity with no protection then entering consumer unit clipped directly to block wall coming out of plaster again no protection

 

[Ian1981]

It’s for a housing association change of occupation.
[automerge]1574887169[/automerge]
Can see tails leaving meter cupboard Into cavity with no protection then entering consumer unit clipped directly to block wall coming out of plaster again no protection

Then yes they would require coding and perhaps the client would like to know why an installation only a year old was installed non compliantly.
The code is down to your risk assessment of the tails and not from anyone else, if you wish to C2 it then you need to justify why it’s potentially dangerous if that code is challenged by others.

 

[Skys]

Ye that’s why I’m in 2 minds, can’t justify why it should be a c2 but at same time I’m thinking so a diy jobs done tomorrow plastic consumer unit no rcd protection and so on. DIY person rings building control. Will an eicr do? So you carry it out apply c3’s and there you go satisfactory report all though not done to current regulations. Just doesn’t sit right

 

[buzzlightyear]

Ye that’s why I’m in 2 minds, can’t justify why it should be a c2 but at same time I’m thinking so a diy jobs done tomorrow plastic consumer unit no rcd protection and so on. DIY person rings building control. Will an eicr do? So you carry it out apply c3’s and there you go satisfactory report all though not done to current regulations. Just doesn’t sit right

you are the test person you name on that test sheet .

 

[Skys]

Ye that’s what doesn’t sit right with me, if it’s not installed to the current regulations such has this instance then surly It can’t be right, Going to stick with my c2 or need something in writing to say why my option is invalid

 

[buzzlightyear]

Going to stick with my c2 or need something in writing to say why my option is invalid

stick to your guns ,I say .

 

[jackhammerJIM]

C2 for me . Im not having my name on a condition report where someone can screw into a lone live conductor with no additional protection on an installation that requires additional protection on all cables buried at a a depth less that 50mm .

 

[Risteard]

This been designed to 17th edition I gave a c2

The problem is you cannot credibly claim that it is more dangerous because it was done more recently than exactly the same issue done in the distant past.

It's either dangerous or it's not - when it was installed or which Edition of the Regulations was in force at the time is wholly irrelevant to that.

 

[Skys]

Agree again it’s no more dangerous than cables buried less than 50mm pre 17th, but somebody has and a regulation was brought in to stop this, so surly if it’s not been followed it should be coded or why change the regulations? But do agree it’s no more dangerous

 

[Risteard]

Agree again it’s no more dangerous than cables buried less than 50mm pre 17th, but somebody has and a regulation was brought in to stop this, so surly if it’s not been followed it should be coded or why change the regulations? But do agree it’s no more dangerous

I never suggested that it shouldn't be coded.

My point was that I would expect you to code it the same way regardless of which Edition it was installed to. Whether it was compliant at the time of installation or not hasn't any relevance to the perception of risk of the issue nowadays. Hopefully that clears it up.

 

[Skys]

Yes it does, just can’t believe new build house can be built not to current standards then 6 months down the line can get a satisfactory eicr done

 

[Risteard]

Yes it does, just can’t believe new build house can be built not to current standards then 6 months down the line can get a satisfactory eicr done

What you need to remember is that a periodic inspection serves a completely different purpose to initial verification.

Certification produced following initial verification is intended to testify that the work complies with the Standard (BS7671).

Reporting following periodic inspection and testing, however, is merely about assessing the safety and suitability of the installation to remain in service subject to the extent and limitations contained therein. It cannot replace certification, nor is it intended to.