EICR code question

[RMS]

Ok - but merely classified as 'improvement recommended' seems a bit inadequate for something which is non-compliant and as such can be deemed unsafe which by definition must mean, at least, 'unacceptable condition' and 'potentially dangerous'.

I would expect all observations regardless of code to be non compliant with BS7671.

depending on the circumstances I would agree with you that a C3 would not always be sufficient if you can prove that the MCB is overloaded regulary for long periods of times.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would expect all observations regardless of code to be non compliant with BS7671.

Yes, a fair point.

However, there is a difference between non-compliant with the latest regulations but acceptable, and 'safe', when installed and

something which would have always been non-compliant, i.e. a wrongly designed/installed circuit.

 

[Spark123]

There is a good chance that some numpty has replaced the shower with a bigger one, not that the circuit never complied.

 

[RMS]

something which would have always been non-compliant, i.e. a wrongly designed/installed circuit.

This is something that is quite common.

Eg. A shower circuit wired in 6mm^2 twin and earth cable enclosed in trunking with a 40amp OPD. (table 4D2A shows the CCC to be 38A).

what code would you assign to this?

 

[EFLImpudence]

There is a good chance that some numpty has replaced the shower with a bigger one, not that the circuit never complied.

Yes, I did suggest that at the beginning of the thread.

Is there a code for 'shower too large'?

Eg. A shower circuit wired in 6mm^2 twin and earth cable enclosed in trunking with a 40amp OPD. (table 4D2A shows the CCC to be 38A).

what code would you assign to this?

That's the same, isn't it.

I think 'improvement recommended' is inadequate so it depends whether you think there is a 'danger present' or it is 'potentially dangerous'.

Indeed, in this case, is there a difference?

 

[GaryMo]

Eg. A shower circuit wired in 6mm^2 twin and earth cable enclosed in trunking with a 40amp OPD. (table 4D2A shows the CCC to be 38A).

what code would you assign to this?

That's the same, isn't it.

I think 'improvement recommended' is inadequate so it depends whether you think there is a 'danger present' or it is 'potentially dangerous'.

Indeed, in this case, is there a difference?

Yes, it wouldn't be a C1 (danger present) unless there's some serious signs of overheating. You could possibly opt for a C2 as potentially dangerous but then again the difference of 2A isn't going to cause that much of an issue considering the length of time a domestic shower is in use.
Realistically I'd say it requires improvement, C3, assuming no signs of overheating or damage is apparent and nothing shows up when the circuit is tested.

 

[RMS]

Yes, it wouldn't be a C1 (danger present) unless there's some serious signs of overheating. You could possibly opt for a C2 as potentially dangerous but then again the difference of 2A isn't going to cause that much of an issue considering the length of time a domestic shower is in use.
Realistically I'd say it requires improvement, C3, assuming no signs of overheating or damage is apparent and nothing shows up when the circuit is tested.

My thoughts exactly.