I Cant think properly...

[securespark]

I'd say 4 meself.

You have my sympathies - but aren't we 4 days into EICRs - in which case, as I understand it, code 4 no longer exists? (which makes the decision even more difficult, I would have thought)

C3

Was still on PIR's there....

Old habits and all that...Took me a while to wean meself off MEB's.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I thought he was talking about your car.

 

[JohnW2]

Have a look at/download 'amendment 1 Forms', http://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-regulations/forms/index.cfm the last 7 or so pages list defects and related regs No's.

Indeed it does - in a section called 'Examples of Items requiring inspection for an EICR'.

Therefore if you're doing a report you should write it in the same way by noting the applicable regs.

You are the only person I've seen or heard of coming to such a strange conclusion. Nothing in the forms' guidance notes or Amendment 1 itself says that you have to 'note the applicable regs' on an EICR. As you go on to say, to do so would be a pain, and potentially could 'open one great can of worms' - so why suggest that one should do it when nothing in the regs says that one has to?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It would not be the first time that holmslaw has come to "such a strange conclusion" about something in the Wiring Regulations, nor will it be the last, as it's all influenced by his desire to discredit them.

 

[JohnW2]

It would not be the first time that holmslaw has come to "such a strange conclusion" about something in the Wiring Regulations, nor will it be the last, as it's all influenced by his desire to discredit them.

I know, but I think it's actually something (someone) other that the Wiring Regulations that he is succeeding in discrediting.

Kind Regards, John