what code

[davesparks]

You cannot fail a eicr on a c3. Giving a c2 is a fail to installation, you cannot give c2 code on personal preference if circuit test result all check out.

You cannot fail an eicr at all, you can only give an overall assessment of the condition as being satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

An eicr is a report on the condition of the installation, merely a document describing the condition of the installation at the time it was inspected and tested in comparison to the non-statutory regulations. It is not a certificate of anything or any kind of legal document.

 

[davesparks]

ok, how would you test rcd on lighting circuits on 16th edition db with cables less 50mm.?

All RCDs are tested in the same way.

 

[Risteard]

ok, how would you test rcd on lighting circuits on 16th edition db with cables less 50mm.?

Obviously I wouldn't if one wasn't present. Although I would make a recommendation about the lack of RCD protection presuming that it is not run in earthed metallic conduit or similar.

That doesn't mean that I must consider it to be as serious as no RCD on an electric shower. By exercising judgement I am fully entitled to state that I believe that one non-compliance has a greater potential for danger than a different non-compliance.

 

[bigspark17]

Obviously I wouldn't if one wasn't present. Although I would make a recommendation about the lack of RCD protection presuming that it is not run in earthed metallic conduit or similar.

That doesn't mean that I must consider it to be as serious as no RCD on an electric shower. By exercising judgement I am fully entitled to state that I believe that one non-compliance has a greater potential for danger than a different non-compliance.

So are you saying a lighting circuit, twin and earth in plastic sheathing installed to 16th edition is c2 on eicr.?

 

[Risteard]

So are you saying a lighting circuit, twin and earth in plastic sheathing installed to 16th edition is c2 on eicr.?

I'm not sure how many times I have to state that I don't believe that it is as serious as a non-RCD protected electric shower. So why do you keep trying to suggest that I have stated something which I clearly haven't?

 

[bigspark17]

I didnt say you did im asking your view on it.? Im just trying to understand your view, im not saying your wrong or right just trying to understand the logic in how your defining one as more serious than another when they both essentially are not conforming to current regs yet are in no worse a state than when they were installed to regs!

 

[Risteard]

If the cables are installed in the prescribed zones then I don't feel that non-RCD protected concealed cables are worthy of a C2 recommendation, so I would settle with C3. I don't feel that it is in any way comparable to an electric shower which has no additional protection (supplementary protection in old money).

 

[bigspark17]

As i stated in #23 if bonding test out ok then c3 only a unsatisfactory test result would result in c2.! Youve not stated in previous posts that bonding not in place!

 

[polo1]

"......or any kind of legal document." Dave, I think the meaning that might be taken from your statement could be misleading. The consequences which may flow from the completion of an EICR are potentially serious. I think many electricians don't appreciate that EICRs have become a method of risk transfer (e.g. from a private landlord to an inspector) in terms of liability if things go pear shaped and there is a fire, injury or even a death.
I'm not trying to dramatise the situation, merely pointing out the potential pitfalls. It's good to have a debate about Coding as it brings perspectives that one may not have considered.

Going back to the OP, I don't think any one has mentioned manufacturer's instructions, which in the case of showers have indicated the use of RCD protection. FWIW, I code showers with no rcd in bathrooms with supplementary bonding a 3, no supp bond, 2

 

[Risteard]

As i stated in #23 if bonding test out ok then c3 only a unsatisfactory test result would result in c2.! Youve not stated in previous posts that bonding not in place!

I would give a C2 for any non-RCD protected circuits in the bathroom if supplementary bonding was not present.

However I would give a C2 observation for a non-RCD protected electric shower regardless. So why would I have mentioned bonding in this instance? I would declare it unsatisfactory because in my opinion it is completely unsatisfactory.

 

[bigspark17]

Well if you give a c2 for shower installed correctly to the regs at that time, all tests relevant to that circuit test ok, bonding is in place and if manufacturers instruction dont stipulate rcd protection req thats is not correct assesment and i would back the customer in not paying for ur inacurate eicr and you would not get paid for that test! You cannot give that unsatisfactory condition just because you would prefere it.! By all means c3 it i would also c3 it but defo not a c2!

 

[Risteard]

Well if you give a c2 for shower installed correctly to the regs at that time

As I keep telling you whether it was allowed at the time or not is completely and utterly irrelevant to periodic inspection and testing - whether it is safe to remain in service when assessed against the requirements of BS 7671:2008 (2015) is the only consideration.

Incidentally, I can almost guarantee that the manufacturer clearly stated that it must be protected by a 30mA RCD.

all tests relevant to that circuit test ok

Inspection is more important than testing - and by inspection I can see that it isn't RCD protected. And an RCD test is a relevant test for such a circuit so not sure how you claim that that would have "tested OK".

i would back the customer in not paying for ur inacurate eicr and you would not get paid for that test!

I most certainly would be paid, and would also sue for being accused of compiling an inaccurate report when I hadn't.

You cannot give that unsatisfactory condition just because you would prefere it.!

But I can give one where I find something which I consider to be unsatisfactory. To suggest otherwise is grossly incorrect.

 

[bigspark17]

Quote by risturd-- As I keep telling you whether it was allowed at the time or not is completely and utterly irrelevant to periodic inspection and testing - whether it is safe to remain in service when assessed against the requirements of BS 7671:2008 (2015) is the only consideration.

so next year are you going to be telling every1 all there plastic 17th edition dual rcd boards need changing to metal???????

 

[Risteard]

Why can you not accept that we are assessing an installation for continued safety? We are not trying to draw up a list of what used to be allowed.

Who cares what was allowed by the 1st Edition of the Wiring Regulations (other than out of interest); or the 8th Edition; or the 14th Edition?

What we are interested in is to what extent deviations from the Wiring Regulations as they stand now might impact upon the safety of the installation.

Not everything which does not comply with the IET Wiring Regulations is equally dangerous. Some things might pose a considerable risk whilst others might be so insignificant that they are not even worthy of mention on the Report. This is what periodic inspection and testing and the issuance of an Electrical Installation Condition Report is all about.

It isn't a test of your knowledge of withdrawn Regulations. What would be the benefit of that?

 

[Farmelectrics]

interesting debate I started it so ill end it code 3 is the winner lol