EICR - No Line or CPC Continuity on Ring

[vwes59]

Here's one I wasn't expecting on an EICR. Recently rewired and renovated 2-bed property (2015ish). Having an EICR as a new tenant to move in soon. No reported problems.

I expected to be in and out in about 3-4 hours to be honest, and as expected I found nothing wrong until I began my ring final tests. All the sockets had already tested fine during my visual check and quick test with my Kewtech tester. I was a little surprised to find this property only had the one ring with the combi boiler also hanging off it, given the board was a 10-way with 4 spare ways in it. Made me wonder why during the rewire the property wasn't split into an upstairs and downstairs ring, but anyway....

So, RN tested out fine, but R1 - open circuit, R2 - open circuit ! Oh joy. At this point the current tenant piped up and said "Should I have mentioned some of the sockets were getting hot ?!"

Anyway according to the Codebreakers guide I should be giving this a C2 (Actually I'm thinking of giving it an FI), and handing the report to the landlord. I admit I don't get many outright failures, but this one obviously is.

Anyway what I was going to ask is I'm assuming what I have here is a ring that's functioning as 2 overloaded radials, and somewhere both conductors have a break in them (It'll be just my luck that they will be in different locations). It can't be classed a C1 can it, as this fault could have been there for years, and another couple of days shouldn't hurt. What would you classify this as - C1, C2 or an FI ?

 

[buzzlightyear]

me FI on that test cert .whether its been their years it should be investigated .

 

[Strima]

C2. I would tend to use FI for unidentified circuits, inaccessible connections etc.

 

[Ian1981]

An open circuit on any conductor on a ring final circuit should attract a C2. What limitations are preventing you inspecting and testing thus giving an FI code?
The FI code is massively misunderstood and misused, it should be used when a limitation in the inspection prevents you from assessing something and where did to the limitations, you suspect danger or potential danger.

 

[James]

C2 for me,

Also, odds are that the cable faults are in exactly the same position.

could be a classic diy mistake, drill hole for picture hook. bang goes electric off.
"turned power back on to see if everything was ok"
found all lights and sockets still working, therefore everything is ok!!!
unseen is the hole blown in live and cpc hidden out of sight.

p.s. replace hole for picture hook with any of the following
nail for picture, floorboard, etc.

screw for floorboard, doorframe, shelf, tv bracket, doorbell, coat hooks, etc.

 

[Deleted account]

FI for me. I’m paid to do test and inspect not fault find. It needs further works to find and put right the existing fault. If I come across the fault by chance then I would rectify it.

The job is to report on the installation as it is, not fault find and put right then test.

 

[James]

I disagree @Paignton pete and @buzzlightyear

This is an inspection only.

there is no further investigation required, a fault has been found in 2 conductors of a ring.
report it's condition as C2 and move on.

if it was not a ring, and the cpc was broken, It may well be a C1, no further investigation is required to find where it is broken. just report it and move on.

Obviously to fix the fault will require further investigation (AKA Fault Finding) as it has not been precisely located.

 

[Ian1981]

Exactly that, an open circuit on a ring final conductor has been found, there is nothing to investigate.

 

[Deleted account]

the reason I don’t think it’s a C2 is because I don’t know if it’s potentially dangerous. If there wasn’t rcd protection maybe I would have C2.

saying that I do get what you are saying @James and don’t have a particular beef against your opinion. C2 or FI . Agree to disagree.

 

[Ian1981]

Code FI (Further investigation required without delay)
It should usually be possible for the inspector to attribute a Classification code to each observation without indicating a need for further investigation.
However, where ‘FI’ has been entered against an observation the inspector considers that further investigation of that observation is likely to reveal danger or potential danger that, due to the agreed extent or limitations of the inspection and/or testing, could not be fully identified at the time.

I don’t see how this is relevant to an open circuit on a ring final there’s an open circuit that’s been identified, especially when the regulations require that each conductor is to be continuous.

 

[James]

oh don't worry about offending me, i am open to discussion, not laying down the law!

my way of looking at it would be that there is a high risk of overloading a conductor because the ring is broken and the ocpd is higher than the current capacity of the cable.
couple of heaters plugged in on a cold night and the cable could be seriously overheated and no trip of breaker to protect it.

rcd wont help until the cable has melted beyond holding the conductors apart.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Open rfc in 99% of circumstances would be FI

i would only C2 if I got high readings on the cpc

 

[Ian1981]

Open rfc in 99% of circumstances would be FI

i would only C2 if I got high readings on the cpc

That make zero sense, it’s potentially dangerous if the continuity is high but it’s not potentially dangerous if it’s open circuit which is worse?

 

[Dustydazzler]

That make zero sense, it’s potentially dangerous if the continuity is high but it’s not potentially dangerous if it’s open circuit which is worse?

sorry , what I ment was I would be happy to convert into a pair of long radials if I could achieve the relevant readings for a 16/20a radial and downgrade the mcb

if it has to remain a rfc then I would FI it and insist the missing link / missing connection be found

 

[7029 dave]

If open circuit has been confirmed on the RFC, what else is there to investigate other than rectify.