EICR - No Line or CPC Continuity on Ring

[mark101]

Looks like that's had loose connections.

It looked like that to me as well but I checked terminations and they were great it was literally due to overload and wrong size mcb on circuit due to fault conditions

 

[oracle]

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 ?

Broken ring, sockets getting hot. 20 A accessories on 32A breaker? Fire risk. F1

 

[littlespark]

Broken ring, sockets getting hot. 20 A accessories on 32A breaker? Fire risk. F1

Whats F1?.... you mean "FI" for Further Investigation?

 

[Dustydazzler]

F1 = Motor Racing ?

Broken ring = painful

 

[daud09]

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.

I am going to disagree and advise that you should base the answer on your findings as your initially there to carry out a condition report. If you test a circuit and find there is no conrinuity of CPC and the problem is not starimg you in the face, then you write down FI in order to advise the client as per your findings. If you see a break in cable and again your remit is to report findings then you add C2 to the report. If however, your remit is to report and resolve then you write the code that applies. There is no science and secret behind codes. The issue is people reading too much into a simple task. C1 dangerous, C2 is potentially dangerous, C3 advisory and FI further investigation to determine result.

 

[brianmoooore]

FI means That you are suspicious that there may be a fault, such as a taped up joint buried in a wall, but have no direct visual evidence. A proven fault, such as an open circuit conductor on a ring is a C2 every time. FI does not refer to the actual fault finding procedure.

 

[7029 dave]

I am going to disagree and advise that you should base the answer on your findings as your initially there to carry out a condition report. If you test a circuit and find there is no conrinuity of CPC and the problem is not starimg you in the face, then you write down FI in order to advise the client as per your findings. If you see a break in cable and again your remit is to report findings then you add C2 to the report. If however, your remit is to report and resolve then you write the code that applies. There is no science and secret behind codes. The issue is people reading too much into a simple task. C1 dangerous, C2 is potentially dangerous, C3 advisory and FI further investigation to determine result.

I disagree, if open circuit has been confirmed on RFC then rectification is the next step not FI surely.?

 

[nicebutdim]

I am going to disagree and advise that you should base the answer on your findings as your initially there to carry out a condition report. If you test a circuit and find there is no conrinuity of CPC and the problem is not starimg you in the face, then you write down FI in order to advise the client as per your findings. If you see a break in cable and again your remit is to report findings then you add C2 to the report. If however, your remit is to report and resolve then you write the code that applies. There is no science and secret behind codes. The issue is people reading too much into a simple task. C1 dangerous, C2 is potentially dangerous, C3 advisory and FI further investigation to determine result.

The answer is in the last two letters of the acronym 'EICR'. If you're tasked with repairing anything you find, then any issues you resolved won't be coded - if you find a fault and can't repair it, then you report on the condition of the installation at the time of writing.

 

[brianmoooore]

The answer is in the last two letters of the acronym 'EICR'. If you're tasked with repairing anything you find, then any issues you resolved won't be coded - if you find a fault and can't repair it, then you report on the condition of the installation at the time of writing.

Exactly! Repairs are not in the remit of an EICR, although myself and most others will deal with very simple faults to repair as they go. Bit like the MOT test for your car, when the tester sticks on a new wiper blade or changes a brake light lamp to avoid failing the car.

 

[James]

my garage issue a fail cert for a faulty lamp
even though i tell them if it needs lamps or brake pads etc, just to do it and send me the bill.

normally i get
fail cert
invoice for number plate lamp etc.
pass cert

i suppose it is the correct way of doing it and also stops the garage from having an unusual pass/fail ratio that might lead them to being checked for irregular practices.

edit, that leads me on to, why dont the part p scams, keep an eye on members that have unusual ratio's of satisfactory vs unsatisfactory eicr's and look closely at the ones who are passing nearly 100% of certificates issued?

 

[7029 dave]

I disagree, if open circuit has been confirmed on RFC then rectification is the next step not FI surely.?

Regarding EICR C2