What are the risks of an overloaded socket outlet?
Do you think you as the the inspector should comment on this in the example I used with regards to the single socket in the kitchen that is clearly being overloaded when carrying out an EICR?
-
Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.
Earthing the gas mains
- Thread starter tusharinuk
- Start date
What are the risks of an overloaded socket outlet?
Do you think you as the the inspector should comment on this in the example I used with regards to the single socket in the kitchen that is clearly being overloaded when carrying out an EICR?
Indeed.
Indeed.
But you've been engaged to use your professional expertise to examine and report on the condition of the electrical installation. That activity is always full of judgement calls, e.g. how much of it do you subject to in-depth inspection, how do you code contraventions etc. We frequently see people here with different opinions on what code to give to something which is unambiguously wrong - they don't disagree that it's wrong but they do disagree over how to code it.
So an EICR is always going to reflect the professional opinion of the person doing it. If PBoD were doing one, and in his professional opinion a bonding conductor should be continuous, and that one with joins does not qualify as good workmanship, he would be perfectly entitled to code that as a violation of BS7671 even if others might disagree. In doing so he would not be going beyond his remit.
I'm not sure that is the intent of 134.1.1 - which relates specifically to 'good workmanship' in the context of 'erection', not design, of an electrical installation. Hence, if the screw terminal connections, crimps or whatever have been 'erected' satisfactorily, then I think that probably consitutes 'good workmanship' as regards 'erection', even if some people may regard the fact that those works have been done (design) as less than ideal. I have not found an equivalent of 134.1.1 which relates to 'good designship'!
Kind Regards, John.
The problem with this is the interpretation of "good workmanship". Just for instance say an electrician who likes to oversize his cables gets a job to carry out an EICR on a property. He/she likes to run in 4mm rings and comes across 2.5mm rings in this property. In his/her opinion its not good practice even though it complies and in many other peoples minds it is good practice. This could then be coded as a c3 on the report.. This is the same as the "continuous bond" example. some people call it good practice over people don't.
Getting back to the bond for the gas, I would not think twice (if running in a new bond caused too much damage/work) in linking the bond to the water. I do not feel personally that that would be a breach of BS7671 even though some one could code it as a c3 with regards to 134.1.1. But then again this regulation is open to vast amounts of interpretation by differing peoples opinions on workmanship.
Getting back to the bond for the gas, I would not think twice (if running in a new bond caused too much damage/work) in linking the bond to the water. I do not feel personally that that would be a breach of BS7671 even though some one could code it as a c3 with regards to 134.1.1. But then again this regulation is open to vast amounts of interpretation by differing peoples opinions on workmanship.
The purpose for an EICR is to report on the condition of the electrical installation. The things we are looking for is, damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and any non-compliances with the regulations that may give rise to danger.
Its not as clear cut saying that if there is no regulation breach then don't make note of it.
Vibro,
Another example would be when carrying out an insulation resistance test on a final circuit you measure a value of 3Mohms between line and cpc. Does this comply with the regulations and would you make a comment on this?
If i got a reading of 3Mohm, even though it does comply i would make a note of it, funnily and contradictory enough in section E and a note on the inspection schedule.
We've agreed that it's very much a subjective call, and I've pointed out that 134.1.1 strictly only applies to 'erection', not design - but I certainly don't think that either of the examples you mention (both design issues) could be regarded as 'poor workmanship' by any sensible person. I can't even see how they could regard those things as 'bad practice' but, even if they did, that's not the same as 'bad workmanship'.
As above, provided you 'erected' the connections satisfactorily, I don't think it could even be regarded as a breach of 134.1.1. ... and that's before I start talking about a perceived requirement for a 'continuous' main binding conductor being essentially silly (at least,in terms of bonding continuity). As I've said before, there will usually be at least 6 (screw terminal) joints in the path between an extraneous-conductive-part and any exposed-conductive-part, so one one earth would a seventh (accessible) joint suddenly make it 'bad practice'?
Kind Regards, John.
Precicely. As long as the net result meets the testing criteria which is the most important part of an EICR, what does it matter.
And for those that say the plumber could remove one leg of a joint he could equally remove the whole bloody lot - thats his problem not yours.
In fact, particularly given that the regs call for pipes to be bonded close to where they enter the premises, I would have thought that by far the most likely thing a plumber might do would be to cut the pipe on the house side of the bonding connection. Unless (s)he took measures to temporarily maintain electrical continuity, that would theoretically leave the installation's pipework unbonded for the duration of the plumbing work (and perhaps pose the greatest potential danger to the plumber him/herself).
Kind Regards, John.
So does that mean if you tested for example an electric shower circuit and the continuity, r1+r2, IR, polarity and Zs were all in compliance.
And the shower enclosure was damaged, we can consider it unimportant?
What has the electric shower circuit to do with the main protective bonding question - stay on topic or better still start a new thread if you don't know what to record on the EICR when the shower enclosure was damaged.
I mean what the hell has a shower enclosure... sliding door, hinges, grouting etc got to do with the EICR, next thing we will checking the flow rate of the drain
Now you're being silly. Not being the 'most important' thing does not mean 'unimportant' and you know as well as everyone else that a damaged shower housing (I presume you don't mean 'shower enclosure' in the normal sense
) is clearly a hazard, and is clearly in a different league from some people's (and old guideline's) belief that a non-continuous bonding conductor is a bad thing!Kind Regards, John.
BS7671 definition if you don't mind! Enclosure=?
I was making a point that testing was not the most important part of an EICR.
I was making a point that testing was not the most important part of an EICR.
Did I say it was a bad thing?
I would prefer to stick to the guidelines of GN8 as mentioned earlier. It is questionable if the guidelines are out of date, as they are the current ones, as they were never updated.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
