guys here are the results of a periodic report and i want to know what you think of the codes given, i feel they are not correct. the house has 4 floors containing 10 studio flats. each flat has a consumer unit. on the page containing particulars of installation at the origin the guy gave earthing conductor as being 16mm sq copper and clicked continuity check ok. now look at first fault reported.
faults
1 Inadequate main earthing conductor. needs 16 mm2. code 1 given
2 no cpc on any lighting circuit code 1 given
3 finger access to consumer units code 1 given
4 inadequate sub mains to each room. exceeding max currant carrying cap. discon times not met. code 1
5 cables feeding water heaters in zone 1 in bathroom clipped direct and not allowed in zone 1. code 2
6 no mechanicalprotection for cables serving coin meters and other equipment. code 1
7 bathroom lights not suitable code 1
8 washing machine in bathroom zone 2 not rcd protected or fixed code 1
9 rcd not tripping in time code 1
10 no equipotential bonding to gas water code 1
11 not enough sockets in each room code 2
12 damaged sockets code 1
13 no live conductor identified at switches, no cpc sleeve or grommets. code 2
14 no rcd on bathroom water heaters.
the guy then quoted 18000 to rewire the whole house.
also the lighting circuits have no cpc, so i understand i can put plastic screws and use class two gear and rcd and lable at cu, but where do i stand with unearthed metal back boxes. thanks
1) As the installation is TN-S, it is unlikely that it will require an earthing conductor with a CSA of 16mm². Most likely 6mm² or perhaps 10mm² at most.
2) The lack of a CPC on the lighting circuits would be a code 4, unless there are class I fittings used, which would then be a code 2.
3) If conductive-parts are accessible in the CU, then yes a code 1, although, I would imagine the remedy would be to just install a blanking piece. Hardly ÂŁ18,000 worth of work.
4) I take it, this is a HMO? In what way are the sub mains inadequate, how hard would it be to swop the CPDs for lower rated devices? Should be code 2.
5) There is nothing in BS7671, prohibiting cables being clipped in zone 1 and water heaters are allowed in zone 1, as long as the manufacturer's rate them accordingly.
6) Do the coin meters and other equipment require mechanical protection, and why? At most a code 2.
7) In what way are the bathroom lights not suitable, are they in any zone? At most a code 2.
8) There is nothing prohibiting a washing machine being in zone 2, or requiring it to be fixed. Obviously it should not be connected to the supply by means of a socket-outlet. Lack of RCD protection would not be specifically for the washing machine, but for all circuits of the location, and would be a code 4.
9) If the RCD is not operating correctly, then it would be a code 2 at most.
10) Lack of equipotential protective bonding is a code 2.
11) insufficient number of socket-outlets per room is a code 4.
12) Damaged socket will depend on whether any conductive-parts are exposed, could be a code 1, 2 or 4. Again hardly ÂŁ18,000 worth of work.
13) Conductors not correctly identified is a code 4.
14) Again lack of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower, code 4.
Code 1 is for use, where there is immediate danger, such as exposed conductive-parts.
Code 2 is for use where there is a potential danger, something that would require a fault, before it became a danger. Such as where disconnection times are inadequate.
Code 3 is where there is insufficient information to determine whether something is acceptable or not, or where Limitations prohibit a proper inspection. Such a case would be the water heaters in the bathroom perhaps. It may not be apparent that they are rated for zone 1, so further investigation would be required by contacting the manufacturer's.
Code 4 are for instances where compliance with BS7671 has not been met, but there is no real danger, such as the lack of identification for the switched lives.
Most of this information is available from the ESC's BPG for PIRs.
As the inspector is registered with the NICEIC, they should be at least following the ECS's advice. Not that I personally agree with every code the ESC advise, it does however seem strange that the inspector is not following their Registration Bodie's advice on coding.
