With a EICR should we test hidden metal parts?

Reading Mail On Line report although clearly the guy had not received the training required I question how any EICR would detect the fault described?

It does show why we need RCD protection but built and tested before 2008 so at that time it was not required.

It also does raise the question as to what is a qualified electrician?

You may see a reduced IR on that circuit but even that probably wouldn't warrant a comment on an EICR.

In the case in question the metalwork is not an exposed conductive part so would not require testing, and the fact it's not exposed at all would make it impossible to test.

The report from the expert witness, if true (bearing in mind this is a none technical newspaper report) seems very strange indeed. I would be more interested to hear if the cable was installed within the prescribed zones.

Theres some more info on the IET forum:

http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=57216

An interesting read and I see the three big issues.

1) The use of twin and earth. Ali-tube cable was designed for use with stud walls.

2) Lack of RCD again now redressed but does show why they are required.

3) Testing before circuits are energised.

Having now read the report clearly it was not a EICR but an installation report and it would seem the semi-skilled worker had only done some of the testing and had been told other tests had already been completed.

However there is still a large question mark. How can a stat fail? I though today they have a cut out so it it fails before it boils a second safety device will stop it boiling. Second is what happened to the pipe fitter who failed to glue the pipes on the tun dish?

Isnt the secondary stat thing a relatively recent change too?


It was clearly a catalogue of failures, and had any one of them gone a different way, there would quite likely have been a different result. But thats usually the way with these freak accidents isnt it?

Interesting. Having read the articles linked to above, it stated no RCD was present at all in the dist board.
Even in 2006 sockets would have required RCD didn't they?
Even tho the immersion heater wouldn't have required rcd, the fact the cables are in metal stud work, is a requirement now to have them on RCD, I guess that reg is new to the 17th edition?

flyingsparks said:

Interesting. Having read the articles linked to above, it stated no RCD was present at all in the dist board.
Even in 2006 sockets would have required RCD didn't they?

Click to expand...

I'm sure that others will remember better than me, but ISTR that 16th only required RCD protection of sockets 'likely to be used for outdoor tools/equipment', or something like that.

Kind Regards, John

flyingsparks said:

Even in 2006 sockets would have required RCD didn't they?

Click to expand...

Under the 16th edition only sockets "reasonablly expected to supply equipment outside the equipotential zone" needed RCD protection.

As said it was a catalogue of errors.
1) Boiler did not have safety cut out.
2) Pipe was not glued by plumber.
3) In spite of reporting sparking did not turn off power.
4) Plaster damaged cable.
5) Some one switched on the power (I would expect there would have been a loud bang which if an electrician had turned it one would have been investigated).
6) The foreman used semi-skilled labour to take readings.
7) Some one be it in the canteen or office not clear which guessed on missing results.

To day either ali-tube cable or RCD protection would stop this happening but at the time this was not required.

It however does reinforce how important inspection and testing is. Although once switched on and the fault cleared only thing that would have been found was possibly a lack of earth to what ever the cable supplied. Not even sure if that would have been the case or not. So once the power had been turned on the first time then it is likely no fault would have been found.

Yes the electrical foreman made an error in judgement but seems odd the one man who did nothing and did not even visit site got the blame. This raises a question would the blame have been laid at the LABC inspectors feet if it had not been a NICEIC controlled job?

I did my mothers wet room around the same time and we did go through the LABC and the inspector did visit before we took over the work when the builder ran off into the hills of Wales.

He did an initial inspection missing completely that the builders had moved the door opening without moving the supporting lintel which was then only supported on one side. He asked who would inspect and test rejected the idea of my son (with a C&G2391) inspecting but then agreed I could inspect and test the electrics.

I completed paper work and submitted and nothing was checked. So in real terms the LABC inspector acted exactly the same way as the NICEIC QC guy.

The Government needs to lead by example. As to DIY jobs with no test equipment well that's a real can of worms. Would a court find a home owner guilty under Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act? If I had done something wrong in my mothers house would I be considered as working or not?

Pipes need to be bonded to prevent them introducing extraneous potentials yet structural metal work apparently can remain unbonded and therefor under fault conditions remain live for prolonged periods of time.

bernardgreen said:

Pipes need to be bonded to prevent them introducing extraneous potentials yet structural metal work apparently can remain unbonded and therefor under fault conditions remain live for prolonged periods of time.

Click to expand...

Structural metalwork which 'enters' the building/equipotential zone (which I suppose effectively means if it is exposed anywhere within the building) has to have main bonding. However, if it is nowhere exposed, there is no requirement (and, in many/most cases, bonding of unexposed/ inaccessible structural metal would clearly be impossible or impractical).

Kind Regards, John