lack of 30ma rcd protection

[westward10]

I am not being contentious, I would like to understand your reasoning behind that statement please. With any supporting evidence if poss?

I know you are not but the notes in BS7671 for producing an EICR make no mention of a risk assessment.

 

[foghorn]

im thinking code 3

 

[The Ghost]

TBH I have recently completed about 300 pgs of EICR and we coded all buildings (4 in all, commercial offices) as C3 with a strongly worded caveat that all building would be part of PM to upgrade as the budget allowed. I suppose that if we say C2 we force the client to pay up for the improvement. If we say C3 we are suggesting that there is a significant improvement in safety if they upgrade. In principle I agree with @westward10 there is nothing to say we should do other than code it. If with a C3 we are saying the installation is satisfactory it rather flies in the face of 411.3.3 so being a belt and braces person I have (but not) considered producing a risk assessement to justify a C3 as you are giving licence to the client to not bother with upgrading. And of course as it says in the intro of BS7671 amd 3 it applies henceforth, not retrospectively.

 

[foghorn]

valid point u have made there vortigern code 2 does kinda ring alarm bells to the client i think as long as its coded and commented in the comment section then covered i guess it depends on what risk the inspector feels at the time of the inspection

 

[westward10]

TBH I have recently completed about 300 pgs of EICR and we coded all buildings (4 in all, commercial offices) as C3 with a strongly worded caveat that all building would be part of PM to upgrade as the budget allowed. I suppose that if we say C2 we force the client to pay up for the improvement. If we say C3 we are suggesting that there is a significant improvement in safety if they upgrade. In principle I agree with @westward10 there is nothing to say we should do other than code it. If with a C3 we are saying the installation is satisfactory it rather flies in the face of 411.3.3 so being a belt and braces person I have (but not) considered producing a risk assessement to justify a C3 as you are giving licence to the client to not bother with upgrading. And of course as it says in the intro of BS7671 amd 3 it applies henceforth, not retrospectively.

I have never agreed that if there are no C1 or C2 entries it is deemed satisfactory, you could have 30 odd C3, but that is okay, not in my eyes which is why we have reworded our Reports to reflect this.

 

[The Ghost]

Well I must say a worthwhile dally on the EICR coding front. It has given me a new perspective on how I am looking at it. When you say @westward10

why we have reworded our Reports to reflect this

can you expand on your thinking, wording?

 

[westward10]

I believe the format for reporting Periodics has been dumbed down because the old Category 1 to 4 was much better, maybe ignoring Cat 4 where you had Urgent, Improvement and Further Investigation. Now there is no middle ground where something may not be urgent/immediate but just a recommendation to improve it. Most C3 items would be a contravention of the EAWR 1989 but it not deemed immediate or urgent, nevertheless it would be a breech of a legal document. It sounds like you have just completed a large EICR, I am just about to start a 800+ circuit site and to me the current format doesn't suit. We deem sites unsatisfactory even if there are no C1 and/or C2 items because they are and we have reworded the small print to this effect.

 

[The Ghost]

@westward10 thanks for that. I can see where you are going with that. Never thought to reword the model forms, thought that was heresy of the first order. However I can see it can be justified and is even needed. So just for instance in the case of the four commercial buildings owned by one company I mentioned earlier. With pretty much no RCD (except a few here and there) would you go for C3/Satisfactory or C3/Unsatisfactory? Or would your re-wording state a fourth possibility? And 800! Phew!!!
Next week I am going to look and see if I would like to take on EICR on properties all over England for a well know retirement housing association. Blocks of flats, endless flats. If I do, I would like to iron out my approach before I start, if I do. Could be thousands not quite sure yet.

 

[westward10]

If the only thing on the Report was no additional rcd protection, though not very likely I would say satisfactory. Yes 800+ so have 4 to 5 weeks on the night shift. I think if you have a client with multiple dwellings consistency is key between the Reports, never assume these things will be filed away you may have some --- like me pondering over why is it C2 in this Report and now C3 in another

 

[PatH]

hi under the 17th ammnendment 3 what code would be given to lack of 30ma rcd protection in a comercial installation 100ma rcd is present

 

[PatH]

I would consider this a C1 especially if there are cct's that include Water Heaters etc protected by the 100mA rcd

 

[HandySparks]

I would consider this a C1 especially if there are cct's that include Water Heaters etc protected by the 100mA rcd

You're having a laugh. How is this "Danger present" with a risk of immediate injury?

 

[westward10]

Delete.

 

[westward10]

I would consider this a C1 especially if there are cct's that include Water Heaters etc protected by the 100mA rcd

Is it April 1st already?

 

[Des 56]

I would consider this a C1 especially if there are cct's that include Water Heaters etc protected by the 100mA rcd

No justified sarcastic reply from me will be forthcoming
But just out of interest,please explain your reasoning for considering the problem a coffin issue