EICR unsatisfactory due to 'no RCD protection to lighting circuits'

[Pretty Mouth]

Forgive me Pretty Mouth but if we as Electricians can't summise dangers of non-compliances (or why regulations are the way they are, why they came to be) then I can't help but think we need to put down thr tools, hit the books and learn and understand.

Sigh.

I expect comments such as this perhaps from some of the more jaded members of our community, but it's disappointing to see it coming from a newcomer such as yourself. At best it serves to irritate, and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Nobody knows everything about our work. There are some people who know a lot, a heck of a lot. There are even some people who think they know it all. But nobody, absolutely nobody knows it all.

 

[Lister1987]

Sigh.

I expect comments such as this perhaps from some of the more jaded members of our community, but it's disappointing to see it coming from a newcomer such as yourself. At best it serves to irritate, and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Nobody knows everything about our work. There are some people who know a lot, a heck of a lot. There are even some people who think they know it all. But nobody, absolutely nobody knows it all.

Im not suggesting everyone know everything, what I'm saying I would like to think the vast majority on here would take time to get understanding of something so fundamental.

I'm curious as to why it comes as a disappointment to you? We are always learning and further our understanding are we not? If we're not trying to understand why we do certain things then we are just blindingly following a book no?

I'm all for discussion with peers, even as a newcomer I have plenty of time for those that have been on that tools since Tesla was an itch on his dad's testicles cough @telectrix .

 

[Lister1987]

Sigh.

I expect comments such as this perhaps from some of the more jaded members of our community, but it's disappointing to see it coming from a newcomer such as yourself. At best it serves to irritate, and it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Nobody knows everything about our work. There are some people who know a lot, a heck of a lot. There are even some people who think they know it all. But nobody, absolutely nobody knows it all.

Im not suggesting everyone know everything, what I'm saying I would like to think tht vast majority on here would take time to get understanding of something so fundamental. If you don't understand Part 4, how can you implement it's protective measures?

Interested to know how/why I've disappointed you as I enjoy peer discussion.

 

[loz2754]

Forgive me Pretty Mouth but if we as Electricians can't summise dangers of non-compliances (or why regulations are the way they are, why they came to be) then I can't help but think we need to put down thr tools, hit the books and learn and understand.

A mechanic for example, will generally know and understand why and what defects are highlighted in an MOT, or the MOT Requirements.

It does give excellent points for discussion and peer development however

From where I'm sitting, the point @Pretty Mouth made was in line with the point you are making, which is this:

The regulations tell us what we need to do but very little on how to do it, so we call upon our own training and experience, and that of others on forums like this and other available information such as best practice guides. Then we are in a position to make informed decisions when it comes to coding.

So why the somewhat harsh tone?

 

[pc1966]

You are responsible up to the point of utilisation, the 3 amp fuse is the point of utilisation.As I said before if you install the fan & manufacturer instructions state a 3 amp & you leave the 13 amp in the fan it seizes & catches fire due to an overrated fuse, you are liable under the health & safety act where it states “ you are responsible for what you do”

This 3A fuse will allow 8A (i.e. around 1.8kW within the fan) for around 2 minutes, but somehow will stop a fire?

 

[telectrix]

the 3A fuse malarky has only forever been a sop to get manufacturers out of court when their cheap tat goes wrong. ot'snevergoing to provide the protection that would stop a problem.

 

[pc1966]

I wonder what they do with extractor fans sold in the EU where I can't think of ever seeing a FCU or its equivalent?

 

[EalingBadger]

I am a landlord and an electrical engineer and the exact same thing happened to me recently as well.

We no longer live near any of our rental properties so I get my EICRs done via the, local to the property, letting agents that we use.

(To my amazement, this particular letting agent has such a regular ongoing requirement for EICRs that the firm employs two full-time electricians of their own directly.)

Anyway, I digress.

I recently had an EICR with a C2 code for this very thing.

Crazy thing was that the new report was from the very same electrician that had produced the previous report five years ago when precisely the same issue was only awarded a C3.

I contemplated arguing with him but he claimed that the regs had changed in the intervening period - and indeed they have (regulation 411.3.4 in case anybody cares).

But, as has already been observed further up this thread, the key thing is that an installation should be judged against whether or not it passes muster under the regs ruling at the time of the install, not the very latest iteration of them.

(Doubtless others will disagree with this, but then that's the great thing about opinions - they're like a*seholes -everybody's got one. )

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that, despite my normal highly developed and stubbornly pedantic tendencies screaming at me to do otherwise and go the full nine yards in debate with him I decided to roll over and let him fit the additional RCD (and new metal CU required to accommodate it to boot along with it) as (1) his price was very reasonable and, (2) it can't really be argued against that it would be safer (no matter how marginal that improvement might be in reality) but, very importantly, (3) in the however exceedingly unlikely event it might be that I might one day find myself up before the beak as a result of some freak tragedy, I did not fancy trying to explain the finer nuances of EICR testing rules to my learned friends in court - even if I was right!

I don't like it when this kind of thing happens but sometimes, from a purely pragmatic business perspective, one has to just swallow it.

(Like paying somebody £75 + VAT to swap out a 13A socket that would just take me five minutes if only I didn't live 200 miles away! )

Hello - sorry to resurrect old thread but it seems to be along the lines of my issue.

I am a landlord with old Volex CU which only has RCD on sockets - EICR inspection has C2's it as no RCD on lighting circuit but reading this thread and spekaing to my usual electrician from London, it would seem it could be a C3 - can anyone advise me please?

Many thanks

Bradley

and

 

[EalingBadger]

BS7671 stipulates that manufacturing instructions have to be adhered too.

not entirely correct. " manufacturers instructions should be taken into account" , no necessarily blindly followed. other wise we'd be following B&Q instructions to connect lights in an unenclosed choc. block, stuffed in the ceiling with 2 layers of insulation tape.

2 layers....?

 

[Lister1987]

From where I'm sitting, the point @Pretty Mouth made was in line with the point you are making, which is this:

The regulations tell us what we need to do but very little on how to do it, so we call upon our own training and experience, and that of others on forums like this and other available information such as best practice guides. Then we are in a position to make informed decisions when it comes to coding.

So why the somewhat harsh tone?

Apologies but didn't write in a harsh tone, joys of the written word.

 

[loz2754]

Apologies but didn't write in a harsh tone, joys of the written word.

Apologies for "hearing" what wasn't intended.

 

[Lister1987]

Apologies for "hearing" what wasn't intended.

No bother, we're all adults it's discussions like this; regulations saying to do something but not explaining why and that subsequent 'work' in the form of CPD and furthering our knowledge of what we're 'told' by the regulations. I've got a few of tht commentary books to thr last few editions of the regs and they do a good job of explaining a few things behind regs.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

But, as has already been observed further up this thread, the key thing is that an installation should be judged against whether or not it passes muster under the regs ruling at the time of the install, not the very latest iteration of them.

(Doubtless others will disagree with this, but then that's the great thing about opinions - they're like a*seholes -everybody's got one. )

This isn't quite the whole picture, and it's not a matter of opinion.

The legislation for landlords requires you to meet the safety standards of the 18th edition.

EICRs are always carried out by comparing the installation to current regs. To test and inspect to earlier editions would be almost impossible: Older copies of the regs are not freely available, and even if they were, we would find it very difficult to date an installation without existing paperwork (this is very rarely available), particularly where there had been alterations and additions over the years. We would also need full knowledge of testing procedures applicable at the time, model forms and so on. And anyway, what would be the point? Standards have moved on.

The level of danger from a particular non compliance remains the same, regardless of when it was installed. This doesn't automatically mean that the non compliance will lead to an unsatisfactory report, but it might.

 

[littlespark]

You test to 18th. If it doesn’t come up to current regs, then minimum C3. You only need to know current regs (and most of us will have the experience of one or two editions previous)

If you find a C1 or C2 then it wouldn’t pass any edition of the regulations.

 

[pc1966]

If you find a C1 or C2 then it wouldn’t pass any edition of the regulations.

C1 would never pass any edition of the regs (at least post WW-1 era!).

However you can go back a couple of editions and find some exceptions, such as sockets likely used for outdoor use without RCD as being normal, but now a C2.

If you are comparing installations of different editions that are still in good condition and meet the original regulations, the usual point of contention is the lack of RCD in older installation and just how much risk is that really presenting. The guidance in BPG#4 is reasonable as usually C3, but C2 for bathroom without supplementary bonding, or sockets that likely would be used for outdoors use, even if they are inside (say in hallway or near back door where extension lead might be used).

But that is guidance, it always falls back on the inspector to decide the risk as it is more complicated in practice depending on quite what is found, the general quality/status of the installation as a whole, and the sort of use it might have.