Unsatisfactory EICR??

[Billwah]

Hi there all,
Just had an EICR c/o in my 3 bed house, and got an unsatisfactory report with c2 and c3 observations.

The c3 is an advisory, with the two c2's causing the unsatis overall report.

The CU is 20 yes old and plastic, with RCD to some circuits, and not others. All are MCBs.

Have been advised to either replace CU for metal, containing similar breakers. OR replace RCD and MCB with RCBOs to eliminate the c2 codes.

One of the c2 codes is for no supplemental bonding.

Friend at work is going through his electrician training and thinks the 2 c2's could be c3s.

Any advice as to which is correct would be fantastic.

Bill

 

[Octopus]

Suggest you google electrical safety council best practice guide no 4 and take a good read

 

[Welchyboy1]

Supplementary bonding in a bathroom was 16th edition regs which sounds like your cu is too

No rcd protection or supplementary bonding would be a c2 For me

If it had just supplementary bonding wired as per 16th edition with no rcd i would c3 it, with a recommendation for rcd protection

Installing an rcbo would solve this issue

What is the other c2?

 

[buzzlightyear]

welcome ,could you put the report on here mainly the observations .the spark that does the work could concentrate doing the c2 that will give it the satisfactory. flak jacket on now, and now tin helmet .

 

[johnduffell]

One of the c2 codes is for no supplemental bonding.

what is the other C2 for? your post implies it's for non metal CU but it's not clear. On a TT installation plastic would actually have safety benefits over metal.

supplemental bonding might not be required in the bathroom even with no RCDs, if the water pipes are all plastic/isolated. Unlikely I know. The electrician should have tested them.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Supplementary bonding in a bathroom was 16th edition regs which sounds like your cu is too

No rcd protection or supplementary bonding would be a c2 For me

If it had just supplementary bonding wired as per 16th edition with no rcd i would c3 it, with a recommendation for rcd protection

Installing an rcbo would solve this issue

What is the other c2?

Supplementary bonding wasn't just 16th regs….it is a requirement in all editions from the 15th up to the present, it is still a requirement in bath/shower rooms unless 3 conditions are met, often overlooked . If there is no supplementary bonding in place for bath/shower rooms and no RCD protection to circuits within the locations, then that is a code 2 as you say.

 

[johnduffell]

Supplementary bonding wasn't just 16th regs….it is a requirement in all editions from the 15th up to the present, it is still a requirement in bath/shower rooms unless 3 conditions are met, often overlooked . If there is no supplementary bonding in place for bath/shower rooms and no RCD protection to circuits within the locations, then that is a code 2 as you say.

true, in fact two of the conditions would result in their own codes as they are necessary anyway (main bonding and disconnection time)

 

[Billwah]

Supplementary bonding in a bathroom was 16th edition regs which sounds like your cu is too

No rcd protection or supplementary bonding would be a c2 For me

If it had just supplementary bonding wired as per 16th edition with no rcd i would c3 it, with a recommendation for rcd protection

Installing an rcbo would solve this issue

What is the other c2?

C2's were for no supplemental bonding and for only 1 RCD. Circuits not on the RCD are: 2 lighting circuits, cooker, and smoke detectors.

 

[SparkyAndGeorge]

Lack of supplementary bonding conductors in location containing bath or shower, unless not required by BS7671: 2018 is a C2 in my opinion.

 

[davesparks]

C2's were for no supplemental bonding and for only 1 RCD.

Is that the exact wording of the report?

 

[Billwah]

what is the other C2 for? your post implies it's for non metal CU but it's not clear. On a TT installation plastic would actually have safety benefits over metal.

supplemental bonding might not be required in the bathroom even with no RCDs, if the water pipes are all plastic/isolated. Unlikely I know. The electrician should have tested them.

Cheers for the reply. Nah the C3 was for the case. The c2's were no supplemental bonding and for only one RCD. Here's a pic of the CU...

 

[Billwah]

Is that the exact wording of the report?

 

[telectrix]

easy job to fit a 2nd RCD in that CU with a bit of reconfiguration (love that word, so i'll say it again....... "it").

 

[Billwah]

Lack of supplementary bonding conductors in location containing bath or shower, unless not required by BS7671: 2018 is a C2 in my opinion.

The sparky asked where the shower pump was, and I told him it had been fitted under the bath with plastic pipes. The fitter got a sparks in to sign that bit off before the bath panel was fitted and mastic-ed in. He seemed fine with it at the time. I known the no going tags were on the hot and cold pipes to the taps too, but you can't see them. If they are inaccessible, is that the same as not there?

 

[Billwah]

What's getting me is that if I either agree to have a new CU or RCBOs fitted, I can have a satisfactory EICR.
How does either of those affect the C2 for no supplemental bonding??