EICR Fail Codes

[EFLImpudence]

If the only way out from the upper floor(s), and possibly the whole property, means passing a burning CU or using stairs with an incendiary device underneath, and the house doesn't have any smoke alarms to give early warning, then that's clearly not a zero risk situation - and IMO worthy of a C2.

I disagree; you are making up your own rules and making it compulsory for CUs to be replaced.

This is not the way the regulations work.

You could say the stairs must be replaced with non-combustible ones.

 

[securespark]

Maybe, but what I am saying is that they shouldn't and there are no specific escape routes in dwellings.

True.

any means of escape being the necessary escape route in case of a fire.

In which case isn't there an argument for: "Wherever the CU is sited, it could be a hazard", not just under the stairs?

I'll go and hide behind the sofa.....

Nor does it anywhere offer any instructions, or even 'guidance', as to what (if any) code should be given on a plastic CU (or any other specific non-compliance with current regs, come to that), anywhere.

Do the regs offer ANY guidance on how to code items listed on an EICR?
Should it?
Why single out the coding WRT CU's?

 

[EFLImpudence]

In which case isn't there an argument for: "Wherever the CU is sited, it could be a hazard", not just under the stairs?

Yes, but is it an electrical issue concerning an EICR?

Many CUs with coat hooks above. Which should be moved?

Do the regs offer ANY guidance on how to code items listed on an EICR?
Should it?

No and No.

Why single out the coding WRT CU's?

Exactly.

Should there be no more cables or accessories laid beneath or clipped to wood?

 

[JohnW2]

Do the regs offer ANY guidance on how to code items listed on an EICR?

NO - as I explained in a recent post.

Should it?

Again as I recently wrote, in my opinion, no.

I believe that BS7671 exists only to specify what are currently reagarded as the minimum safety standards. I don't think it is is's place to say anything about 'how dangerous' particularly non-compliance with particular regulations are.

If one wanted explicit 'regulations' about the coding of EICRs that should, IMO, be somewhere other than in BS7671 - but, I have said, such 'regulations' could never be comprehensive, so there will always be the need for professional/'expert' judgement in some situations,

Why single out the coding WRT CU's?

No-one is singling it out. It's just the one example that i currently being discussed - but there are countless other issues when two inspectors might give different codes for the same non-compliance, or the same inspector might give different codes for the same non-compliance in 'different circumstances'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I disagree; you are making up your own rules and making it compulsory for CUs to be replaced.

Err, no I'm not.
Are we all agreed that a plastic cased CU does not comply with the current regs* ?

Assuming we are, then the inspector is faced with an item that is not compliant with current regs - and we do know that it was a fire issue that cause the reg to be introduced in the first place. I assume we are agreed on that as well ?

Right, so all we now need to decide (or rather, the inspector doing the EICR has to decide) is how "dangerous" the non compliance is.

So we need to make a decision. It's clearly "not at all dangerous, ever" or they wouldn't have felt the need to introduce the regulation. And we do know from various sources that LFB in particular have been blaming house fires on conflagrating CUs. And we do know that people do die in house fires.
So as I said earlier, we have to make our best judgement about "how dangerous" any particular example is - ranging from "barely any risk" to "significant risk". Judgement - exactly what an inspector is required to apply when performing an EICR. Different inspectors will have different views on where to draw the lines - not helped by conflicting guidance from different bodies.

If the property is not a private rental, then coding a C2 does not mandate the CU be replaced. Even in a private rental it doesn't - there are other ways to compliance such as just building a small non-combustible cupboard around it.

* Given that the regs don't give any indication as to how "non-combustible" can be defined/declared other than the example of steel being compliant.

Yes, but is it an electrical issue concerning an EICR?

OK, lets consider another possible risk. You find an immersion heater with no thermostat at all - just a manual switch, and there's a plastic header tank in the loft which happens to be right above a bedroom.
Electrically there's no problem - the immersion heater won't have any problem being left on all the time. So if you take the view that "if it's not electrical then we can't consider it" then this non-compliance shouldn't be mentioned either. But again, we do know that there is a very real danger - and it has previously happened.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7179092.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/3035606.stm

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are we all agreed that a plastic cased CU does not comply with the current regs* ?

If it is NOT non-combustible.

Assuming we are, then the inspector is faced with an item that is not compliant with current regs

Therefore C3. End of.

- and we do know that it was a fire issue that cause the reg to be introduced in the first place. I assume we are agreed on that as well ?

I think we know that loose terminal were the problem and the reaction was a knee-jerk OTT one.

Right, so all we now need to decide (or rather, the inspector doing the EICR has to decide) is how "dangerous" the non compliance is.

We could ask why is it now dangerous when such things have been around for years.

So we need to make a decision.

I have already made mine. I am not going to replace my plastic CU.

It's clearly "not at all dangerous, ever" or they wouldn't have felt the need to introduce the regulation. And we do know from various sources that LFB in particular have been blaming house fires on conflagrating CUs. And we do know that people do die in house fires.

Why do they make houses out of combustible material?

So as I said earlier, we have to make our best judgement about "how dangerous" any particular example is - ranging from "barely any risk" to "significant risk". Judgement - exactly what an inspector is required to apply when performing an EICR. Different inspectors will have different views on where to draw the lines - not helped by conflicting guidance from different bodies.

Don't look at any guidance; you should not need any if carrying out EICRs.

If the property is not a private rental, then coding a C2 does not mandate the CU be replaced. Even in a private rental it doesn't - there are other ways to compliance such as just building a small non-combustible cupboard around it.

Same difference. Compulsory for landlords.

* Given that the regs don't give any indication as to how "non-combustible" can be defined/declared other than the example of steel being compliant.

Irrelevant then.

OK, lets consider another possible risk. You find an immersion heater with no thermostat at all - just a manual switch, and there's a plastic header tank in the loft which happens to be right above a bedroom.
Electrically there's no problem - the immersion heater won't have any problem being left on all the time. So if you take the view that "if it's not electrical then we can't consider it" then this non-compliance shouldn't be mentioned either. But again, we do know that there is a very real danger - and it has previously happened.

Do you not think an immersion without a thermostat is potentially dangerous and warrants a C2?
Simply remedied.

You can inform the owner but you cannot give a plastic water tank a C2 in an EICR.

 

[SimonH2]

If it is NOT non-combustible.

How can it be not non-combustible ? BS7671 does not define it, so you have no standard or definition to comply with. Even steel is combustible under the right conditions but the reg explicitly states that it complies. As the reg is written, you cannot claim anything other than steel complies.

Why do they make houses out of combustible material?

Not relevant to the discussion ?

Do you not think an immersion without a thermostat is potentially dangerous and warrants a C2?

You can inform the owner but you cannot give a plastic water tank a C2 in an EICR.

I sometimes wonder if you're being a bit if a BAS !
Where is the danger if the header (or F&E) tank is steel or copper ? In that case surely only C3 ?
I have never suggested a plastic tank would be coded - but it would influence how you code something that is within scope for the EICR.

 

[ericmark]

@SimonH2 makes some good points as to dangers, like the header tank made from thermal plastic, but as with the header tank made from thermal plastic, was it the header tank or the thermostat to blame?

I have been to houses with a back boilers where the immersion heater has failed to work due to the water boiling in the back boiler, the tanks have been either metal or thermosetting plastic, which does not fail with boiling water. But some one has fitted non resettable over-temperature trips.

Mr Pritchard said: "I understand that the tank wasn't fully supported. In my view this would explain why this tank slumped and released its water." Mr Nicholas told the inquest he heard the hot water tank in his room "bubbling" on many occasions in the months leading up to the accident but had not reported it to the housing association.

Current safety standards say the loft tank should be able to hold boiling water for up to 500 hours, if fitted correctly. In April 2004 the British Standard Institute said any repairs, replacement or new installation of immersion heaters should use models which had a safety trip.

I would agree a re-settable over temperature trip is a good idea, but as a boy we would often hear the water boiling in the side boiler on the Aga, it was loud, and my mother would send me to run off water, may be not all house's have warning signs, but it is clear with first one they did, and selected to ignore them.

As with the death of Emma Shaw there was not just one single item which caused the death, there were it would seem a collection of faults.

I would agree with a thermal plastic tank there needs to be a cut out, at least since 2004, but how many electricians know the difference between thermal plastic and thermal setting, they don't seem to be able to identify it with cable, so why should they with a water tank?

But we are returning to the same point, where does the EICR stop, is it really down to the inspector to identify types of water tank, or what is an escape route? I have seen the builder do a death deifying leap from the garden over a walk way to the balcony so he did not need to walk through house with Covid19 thoughts. For him that was clearly an escape route, however not really an option for me, or my wife. From my drive I have pasted things up to bedroom window, we live on a hill, so bedroom floor only around 3 foot higher than drive, but as to me getting out of the window, that's another matter.

There are 6 doors from the house, on the ground floors there are only 4 rooms without doors, although as said the door to balcony would not help much, but it is no in the electricians remit to work out escape routes, or assess the plumbing, and it seems with first report there was also gas water heating so the electric cut out would not have stopped the gas boiler doing as the name says and boiling the water.

 

[JohnW2]

But we are returning to the same point, where does the EICR stop, is it really down to the inspector to identify types of water tank, or what is an escape route?

In some senses, I don't think that we can have it all ways.

If we want an EICR to not only identify things which are non-compliant with current regulations, but to also indicate how much of a danger they represent (hence if, and how urgently, 'remedial work' is required) (i.e. give them 'codes' on an EICR), then it is inevitable that, in some cases, the assessment of 'degree of danger' will require considerations (based on judgement) of the 'circumstances', which will sometimes involve consideration of things not directly related to the electrical installation. If the inspector himself/herself is unable to take adequate consideration of those non-electrical issues, he/she would have to seek assistance from someone with the appropriate expertise. However, that doesn't really happen, so I presume that the (electrician) inspector just muddles through on the basis of what they understand of the non-electrical issues.

The only alternative I can think of (in circumstances as recently mentioned) would be for the inspector to be allowed to identify on the EICR the existence of a non-compliance, but without indicating (e.g. by 'coding', as at present) how dangerous the non-compliance or whether if, and how urgently' remedial action was required - but that would be pretty unsatisfactory for someone in receipt of the EICR!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

We are looking for:-
(i) shock currents
(ii) excessive temperatures likely to cause burns, fires and other injurious effects
(iii) ignition of a potentially explosive atmosphere
(iv) undervoltages, overvoltages and electromagnetic influences likely to cause or result in injury or damage
(v) mechanical movement of electrically actuated equipment, in so far as such injury is intended to be prevented by electrical emergency switching or by electrical switching for mechanical maintenance of non-electrical parts of such equipment
(vi) power supply interruptions and/or interruption of safety services
(vii) arcing or burning, likely to cause blinding effects, excessive pressure and/or toxic bases.

As such (ii) does relate to an immersion going over temperature, but not directly as it requires two or more faults. But of course the same applies to a oil or gas boiler that is controlled by electric, so when my gas water heater valve stuck and it boiled the water and burst a pipe joint, is that an electrical or gas or plumbers responsibility? The immersion heater and thermostat is not the only device that can cause water to boil.

The problem as I see it is the demarcation between appliance testing and installation testing. I know for ease we would agree any items without a plug would be tested by the guy doing the EICR, but this was a private arrangement within the firm I worked for, as EICR was done by two people, and the PAT testing by one person.

We never really considered hand driers, as part of the EICR it was just it was easier for two guys to do the test, being fixed to the building does not make it part of the installation, it does not matter if a batching plant is on a concrete base or portable on 24 wagons, it is an item of plant and is tested by the people designated to look after it, not the organization who installs the power.

So be it a washing machine, oven, hob, boiler, extractor fan or anything else which could be fixed, to my mind they were not part of the general EICR and would be tested independent, when doing an EICR I stop at the FCU supplying the Boiler, or Immersion, or Oven.

I can't really pick and choose what I test, and can't really test an immersion heater and not a boiler, and of course removing the fuse and putting a tie rap through the fuse carrier means it is isolated and not in service, so does not need testing.

However the building regulations seems to say otherwise, so my mothers old Bendix washing machine would have been part of the EICR, but he Hoover would be part of the PAT testing. This does not make sense. Even if old Bendix was bolted to the floor.

 

[JohnW2]

However the building regulations seems to say otherwise, so my mothers old Bendix washing machine would have been part of the EICR, but he Hoover would be part of the PAT testing. This does not make sense. Even if old Bendix was bolted to the floor.

What in the Building Regulations says that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... The EICR was a "fail" with a number of C2 codes. ...
1. Missing seal on the supplier fuse.
2. Missing cover from PEN connector block.

Returning (after 6 pages of spin-off discussions!) to the original post by @DIYinBerks , at the time several of us commented that these issus related to DNO equipment should not have been mentioned, and certainly probably not 'coded' on an EICR (and, in any even, probably would not warrant C2s even if they were coded!).

I have just stumbled across this in the ('informative') guidance in Appendix 6 of BS7671 (one of the few places in BS7671 where it says anything much about EICRs, although it never calls them that {other than as titles of forms}, anyway!) ...

CONDITION REPORT INSPECTION SCHEDULE
GUIDANCE FOR THE INSPECTOR
1 Section 1.0. Where inadequacies in the intake equipment are encountered the inspector should advise the person ordering the work to inform the appropriate authority. ....

So, that seems to be agreeing that such things should not be 'coded' on an EICR but that 'the person ordering the EICR' should be 'advised to inform the appropriate authority' (i.e. the DNO).

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Returning (after 6 pages of spin-off discussions!) to the original post by @DIYinBerks , at the time several of us commented that these issus related to DNO equipment should not have been mentioned, and certainly probably not 'coded' on an EICR (and, in any even, probably would not warrant C2s even if they were coded!).

I have just stumbled across this in the ('informative') guidance in Appendix 6 of BS7671 (one of the few places in BS7671 where it says anything much about EICRs, although it never calls them that {other than as titles of forms}, anyway!) ...
So, that seems to be agreeing that such things should not be 'coded' on an EICR but that 'the person ordering the EICR' should be 'advised to inform the appropriate authority' (i.e. the DNO).

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

That's what I do. Either that, or inform the appropriate authority myself.

 

[ericmark]

electrical installation” has the meaning given in regulation 2(1) of the Building Regulations 2010(2);

electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter;

So if the electrical equipment is fixed then it comes under EICR, as to fixed, it says

“fixed building services” means any part of, or any controls associated with—
(a)fixed internal or external lighting systems, but does not include emergency escape lighting or specialist process lighting; or
(b)fixed systems for heating, hot water, air conditioning or mechanical ventilation;

So that must mean it includes the boiler and immersion heater, and this is the bit I think is wrong, my reading of it means we as electricians would need to remove covers from boilers to ensure cables are clamped. But some gas boilers have the electrical connections within gas tight areas if we are to believe what we are told by gas safe people, or maybe they want the work for them self?

I would say if not plugged in then part of the EICR going from what the law says, but that is not what traditionally has been seen as the EICR, traditional it did not include anything considered as an appliance, so would not include cooker, or boiler, but did include lights.