Poor install EICR 12 year old hotel

[conrad]

Carrying out an eicr. Thoughts on these DBs installed in each room. Around 20 have been installed in this manner with no gland on the supply SWA and the top surface of the DB completely removed.
Note the plasterboard hole is small in this image compared to some.
What do you think other than replacing baring in mind the rcbos for this DB can be £100 alone. Paxolin to slide in etc? Time. Shame for the customer who has had this poor installation.

I have noted as C2 for a number of different reasons. As follows if you wish to read.
522.8.5.
The SWA cable entering the DB has no gland fitted. C2
701.411.3.3
Circuits passing through and supplying accessories in loaction containing bath/shower not provided with RCD protection. C3
527.2.1
Large Hole not made good in plaster board above DB to prevent the spread of fire. C2
411.3.3
No RCD protection on socket outlets, commercial premesis. C2 (Fridge Socket)
522.6.202
No RCD protection for cables buried in the walls. C3
416.2.2
Top surface of Distribution Board has been removed. The integrity of the DB has not been maintained during installation. ip4x not maintained. C2.

 

[conrad]

Thinking about the hole I would not code 2 for fire reasons because as long as all the terminals are tight its not going to catch on fire , but might code 2 it due to the amount of dust debris that could build up inside the CU and get into the terminals due to the large hole.

Again reading the napit codebreakers book it states holes not made goot as to reduce the spread of fire are C2. I would rather C2 and have a valid reference such as a book than to C3 it and argue against it.

 

[Flanders]

They also code 2 pvc cables not rcd protected in walls less than 50mm from surface so it’s not to be taken as gospel in my opinion.

Agree with you there thats always a code 3 for me

 

[Flanders]

They also code 2 pvc cables not rcd protected in walls less than 50mm from surface so it’s not to be taken as gospel in my opinion.

Agree with you there thats always a code 3 for me

 

[Ian1981]

Again reading the napit codebreakers book it states holes not made goot as to reduce the spread of fire are C2. I would rather C2 and have a valid reference such as a book than to C3 it and argue against it.

You have bs 7671 as reference.
It can be considered a C2 if it’s a fire barrier as per section 527

 

[conrad]

Thinking about the hole I would not code 2 for fire reasons because as long as all the terminals are tight its not going to catch on fire , but might code 2 it due to the amount of dust debris that could build up inside the CU and get into the terminals due to the large hole.

Again reading the napit codebreakers book it states holes not made goot as to reduce the spread of fire are C2. I would rather C2 and have a valid reference such as a book than to C3 it and argue against it.

Napit are wrong then.

I disagree. If someone was to plug something in

You have bs 7671 as reference.
It can be considered a C2 if it’s a fire barrier

527.2.1 is the reg attached to the coding in the napit book. Obviously there will be no mention of coding in the regs but again i would rather have a reference, although i agree not gospel.

 

[conrad]

Agree with you there thats always a code 3 for me

I put C3 and i believe it is a C3 in the napit book.

 

[Flanders]

Again reading the napit codebreakers book it states holes not made goot as to reduce the spread of fire are C2. I would rather C2 and have a valid reference such as a book than to C3 it and argue against it.

There is no right or wrong answer its down to the persifics of each situation and you make a judgment call on it I will stick with my code 3 but would not judge someone else if they where to code 2 it .

 

[conrad]

The idea is tho that you are now outside the equipotential bonding using outdoor equipment so I’d agree that if socket outlets that are not likely to be used outdoors and this is carefull considered by the inspector perhaps in conjunction with the client, then I agree a C3 at worst for no rcd protection to sockets.
You are coding against additional protection to the user and not the equipment plugged into it
For a specific socket used as in the op for a fridge it can’t possibly be a C2 code

The sockets are not labelled, no risk assessment and they are not being used for the fridges in alot of the rooms. The client also said that he often finds the fridges have been unplugged as there isnt enough sockets in the rooms

 

[conrad]

If the swa is glanded at the supply end and the armour is at least connected to earth, I can’t see how it can possibly be a C2 unless there is signs of mechanical stresses on the cable at the load end?

Cant see above the DB to see if its cleated well and they all seam to be coming in at angles. Its all together rough so ill stick with C2. If i was to share some of the communal areas you would agree. The rooms are good compared.

 

[conrad]

There is no right or wrong answer its down to the persifics of each situation and you make a judgment call on it I will stick with my code 3 but would not judge someone else if they where to code 2 it .

I think youd agree that it is rough and would prefer to see the DB installed properly and stick an rcd socket on the socket not protected as again the client has stated people unplug the fridge and use it for all sorts.

Does it give a reason for this? , also is a hotel classed as commercial I thought they would be classed as simply a hotel

Yes its classed as commercial premesis.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Regarding the socket, it's a code 3 for me, however in these circumstances I always add an advisory note that the provision of RCD protection is strongly recommended. Given that under a very recent edition of Bs7671 the provision of a socket outlet for a specific item of equipment was permitted without RCD protection it is very hard to justify a 'potentially dangerous' code.

 

[conrad]

Regarding the socket, it's a code 3 for me, however in these circumstances I always add an advisory note that the provision of RCD protection is strongly recommended. Given that under a very recent edition of Bs7671 the provision of a socket outlet for a specific item of equipment was permitted without RCD protection it is very hard to justify a 'potentially dangerous' code.

But the reg 411.3.3 specifically says risk assessment required and even if ther was its clearly not being used for a specific item of equipment. I still think C2 when the public are involved especially in terms of liability.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It’s the 18th now.
All socket-outlets must have RCD protection.
Risk Assessments are out the window.

 

[dmxtothemax]

We do not know the conditions under which this instal was done,
It seems to be mostly what people might call sloopy work,
Or not " Best practice " but it is not really dangerous,
it's just not best practice.
Many electrical instals are done to a lower standard,
yet last for decades with no problems.
everything can always be done better

 

[Ian1981]

It’s the 18th now.
All socket-outlets must have RCD protection.
Risk Assessments are out the window.

Risk assessments are not out of the window on non domestic installations 411.3.3 an exception to (i) is permitted where other than an installation in a dwelling, a documented risk assessment determines that rcd protection is not necessary