Is this the real bible eicr code breaker

[MG201]

1.3 no distributer earth connection between service cable and MET.
1.4 minimum CSA of meter tails.
1.6 isolator enclosure is not made from non combustible material.

what would you regard as error ? is it the wording you disagree with or the content

 

[Octopus]

Shouldn't this come from the IET?

One source, one set of people to blame?

Or is this just a job creation scheme for the CPS's ?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

what would you regard as error ? is it the wording you disagree with or the content

Lack of a connection between the supply cable and the MET would be a TT earthing system and would not warrant a code.
There is no minimum CSA for tails in BS7671.
The requirement for non-combustible enclosure only applies to the consumer’s installation, so no code if the isolator is the Distributer’s equipment and at most would warrant a code C3 if the isolator is the Consumer’s.

Thermal damage has nothing to do with the requirement to use non-combustible material for the enclosure.

 

[Ian1981]

I’ve got the book.
They have also deemed pvc cables concealed in walls a C2 without additional protection via 30mA rcd, mechanical protection etc.
I’ve got the 17th edition version 1 book also given to us in a tool box talk ,where in that version cables concealed in walls etc ,is given what I would say as the industry collective opinion of a C3.
Don’t know if they have changed their minds or it’s a mistake in the publication?

It’s decent but as the inspector the codes are yours to put down and no one else’s in my opinion.
There’s loads of codes in the book I feel are not what I would code.

 

[Ian1981]

Oh dear! Cables not protected by an rcd in a wall a C3 but without mechanical protection a C2? (17th edition version) A bit of a cock up id say

 

[Octopus]

^^ that's appalling

Lots of Napit members are going to be using this as the gospel truth

 

[Ian1981]

^^ that's appalling

Lots of Napit members are going to be using this as the gospel truth

How can a cable not protected by an rcd be a C3 yet the likelihood of having mechanical protection is nil, but that is a c2 when both methods are acceptable to use ? they must be the same code if both are missing

 

[Octopus]

How can a cable not protected by an rcd be a C3 yet the likelihood of having mechanical protection is nil, but that is a c2 when both methods are acceptable to use ? they must be the same code if both are missing

Inconsistent - must have be written by the guys who produce the regs...

 

[Ian1981]

Inconsistent - must have be written by the guys who produce the regs...

There’s quite a lot of input from various persons so I don’t think it’s been given a overall final say by a senior person/editor on the coding in general

 

[magnoliafan89]

Shouldnt rcds be required when cables are in a wall less than 50mm deep without any protection?

 

[Octopus]

There’s quite a lot of input from various persons so I don’t think it’s been given a overall final say by a senior person/editor on the coding in general

But they are selling it ......................

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Shouldnt rcds be required when cables are in a wall less than 50mm deep without any protection?

Only when run in prescribed routes (safe zones).
RCD protection is not an option for cables elsewhere.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

View attachment 45746 View attachment 45748

This is rubbish.
There is no prohibition in BS7671 against running cables outside of prescribed zones or diagonally. They need to be protected by one of the listed methods.

 

[Ian1981]

This is rubbish.
There is no prohibition in BS7671 against running cables outside of prescribed zones or diagonally. They need to be protected by one of the listed methods.

I just hope people don’t start quoting this book as gospel and use it as the be all and end all of eicr coding

 

[Octopus]

Wonder if we should share this thread with NAPIT?