EICR - Unsatisfactory - No RCD - C2

[davesparks]

On that basis, the C2s should be C3s, and the installation is 'satisfactory'.

Not necessarily, you can give an overall assessment of unsatisfactory with only C3 observations.

Having a C1 or C2 makes it automatically unsatisfactory but this does not preclude an installation without such observations from also being unsatisfactory.

 

[westward10]

Not necessarily, you can give an overall assessment of unsatisfactory with only C3 observations.

Having a C1 or C2 makes it automatically unsatisfactory but this does not preclude an installation without such observations from also being unsatisfactory.

Totally agree and I do in fact I did a thread on this a while back.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Not necessarily, you can give an overall assessment of unsatisfactory with only C3 observations.

Having a C1 or C2 makes it automatically unsatisfactory but this does not preclude an installation without such observations from also being unsatisfactory.

Just want to check this @davesparks , as I thought there had to be a C1 or C2 for an unsatisfactory outcome? Based on the note in section E of the EICR model form:

*An unsatisfactory assessment indicates that dangerous (code C1) and/or potentially dangerous (code C2) conditions have been identified.

 

[westward10]

Just want to check this @davesparks , as I thought there had to be a C1 or C2 for an unsatisfactory outcome? Based on the note in section E of the EICR model form:

*An unsatisfactory assessment indicates that dangerous (code C1) and/or potentially dangerous (code C2) conditions have been identified.

But it doesn't say if there are none of those Codes it is immediately satisfactory.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

But it doesn't say if there are none of those Codes it is immediately satisfactory.

I was about to argue with you about this: Unsatisfactory = C1 or C2 identified, therefore no C1 or C2 must = satisfactory.

Until I noticed no mention of FI's in the note, which will = an unsatisfactory report. IET should re-write that note really, so as we're all on the same page (customers included).

 

[westward10]

I was about to argue with you about this: Unsatisfactory = C1 or C2 identified, therefore no C1 or C2 must = satisfactory.

Until I noticed no mention of FI's in the note, which will = an unsatisfactory report. IET should re-write that note really, so as we're all on the same page (customers included).

Even without 1, 2 and FI there is nothing to say it must be satisfactory.

 

[loz2754]

Even without 1, 2 and FI there is nothing to say it must be satisfactory.

Westward10 - I'm not sure I'm following your thinking here.

Perhaps you would care to share an example of something you would consider that is not immediately dangerous or potentially dangerous, but would result in a report being unsatisfactory?

Being that the purpose of an EICR is to show whether the installation is safe for continued use, meaning that there is nothing dangerous or potentially dangerous.

 

[westward10]

Westward10 - I'm not sure I'm following your thinking here.

Perhaps you would care to share an example of something you would consider that is not immediately dangerous or potentially dangerous, but would result in a report being unsatisfactory?

Being that the purpose of an EICR is to show whether the installation is safe for continued use, meaning that there is nothing dangerous or potentially dangerous.

Simple really, the suggested report format in BS7671 does not state a report should be satisfactory if only Code 3 issues are present.

 

[loz2754]

Simple really, the suggested report format in BS7671 does not state a report should be satisfactory if only Code 3 issues are present.

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question.
It's not important anyway, just being curious.

 

[davesparks]

Perhaps you would care to share an example of something you would consider that is not immediately dangerous or potentially dangerous, but would result in a report being unsatisfactory?

If there are no C1 or C2 items but multiple pages of C3 items you might consider whether or not it has got to the point of being unsatisfactory.

 

[loz2754]

If there are no C1 or C2 items but multiple pages of C3 items you might consider whether or not it has got to the point of being unsatisfactory.

I can see what you and westward10 are getting at, and, as it's left up to the one doing the inspection and testing to decide how to classify the installation, no-one can really contest it. I suppose you would write in the comments the reason(s) for the "Unsatisfactory" declaration?

 

[westward10]

I can see what you and westward10 are getting at, and, as it's left up to the one doing the inspection and testing to decide how to classify the installation, no-one can really contest it. I suppose you would write in the comments the reason(s) for the "Unsatisfactory" declaration?

I would list all the Code 3 observations there is no need to separately say why it is unsatisfactory. I see why people read it the way it is but as I say it does not state it should be satisfactory if there are no Codes 1, 2 or FI.

 

[timhoward]

I would list all the Code 3 observations there is no need to separately say why it is unsatisfactory. I see why people read it the way it is but as I say it does not state it should be satisfactory if there are no Codes 1, 2 or FI.

I know exactly what you are getting at.
There have been times where "safe for continued use" has felt like a lower bar than "satisfactory" even though one is supposed to imply the other.
I recently gave a 2nd opinion on a house with entirely 60's wiring, no CPC on lighting circuit, and no earth sleeving on any socket or light switch. Worst IR was about 5M. Also nowhere near enough sockets, leading to lots of extension leads. It had a a recent Hager board with upfront type A RCD. According to BPG4 all of the the above are C3's or no-code at worst. In once sense that was correct - no one was going to die today or tomorrow, it was safe enough for continued use "for now". It would have felt a stretch saying it was "Satisfactory" though, simply according to the common understanding of the word.

For the record, I've noticed that BPG4 does say precisely that it should be satisfactory if there are no C1,C2 or FI codes. I know that isn't an authoritative document. It's a document I generally appreciate though when dealing with domestic customers.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I personally think we are intended to give a satisfactory result where there is an absence of C1's, C2's and FI's. I can't find anything in the regs, forms, guidance etc that backs up the idea that we can give an unsatisfactory result where only C3's are present.

If an unsatisfactory report has only C3's, what remedial work should be done to bring it back to satisfactory?

From the OSG:

Where an unsatisfactory result has been recorded, C1 and/or C2 observations will have been included identifying the reason(s) for the result. Fl (Further Investigation) may also be recorded where the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 observation.

 

[westward10]

I personally think we are intended to give a satisfactory result where there is an absence of C1's, C2's and FI's. I can't find anything in the regs, forms, guidance etc that backs up the idea that we can give an unsatisfactory result where only C3's are present.

If an unsatisfactory report has only C3's, what remedial work should be done to bring it back to satisfactory?

From the OSG:

Where an unsatisfactory result has been recorded, C1 and/or C2 observations will have been included identifying the reason(s) for the result. Fl (Further Investigation) may also be recorded where the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 observation.

None of these are Regulations though BS7671 is scant on advice for periodics and the Appendix where the report format is contained is informative.