Electrical Condition Inspection Report

[stl]

Hi,

Just wondering what code the following would give on an ECIR and if there is any 'real' concern in terms of electrical safety?

1) CU is 4 way and all circuits (lighting, sockets, shower and cooker) are covered by RCD on the main insolation switch. I gather this is because it is a TT supply. No other RCD's, just MCB's.

2) From the CU, an earth goes to the gas meter, a separate earth goes from the CUT to an earth stake and then an earth goes from the earth stake to the water stop cock.

3) The earth wires are about 6mm if not slightly less.

Wiring is from about 1997 and its for a downstarirs flat, with most cables under the floorboards, laying loose and not clipped.

Many thanks

 

[Iggifer]

Code C1
‘Danger present’. Risk of injury. Immediate remedial action required.
Code C2
‘Potentially dangerous’. Urgent remedial action required
Code C3
‘Improvement recommended’.

Pretty straightforward I think

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are you carying out an EICR?

1) CU is 4 way and all circuits (lighting, sockets, shower and cooker) are covered by RCD on the main insolation switch. I gather this is because it is a TT supply. No other RCD's, just MCB's.

Ok. That's the way it is.

2) From the CU, an earth goes to the gas meter,

No, it's a Main Bond(ing conductor).

a separate earth goes from the CUT to an earth stake

Ok. What is a CUT?

nd then an earth goes from the earth stake to the water stop cock.

No, it's a Main Bond(ing conductor).
Why do you mention the stopcock? Is it plastic pipe?

The earth wires are about 6mm if not slightly less.

Probably ok, but, depending on where they are, may have to be larger nowadays for mechanical protection.

Wiring is from about 1997 and its for a downstarirs flat, with most cables under the floorboards, laying loose and not clipped.

How do you clip cables under the floorboards?

 

[JohnW2]

Just wondering what code the following would give on an ECIR and if there is any 'real' concern in terms of electrical safety?

It obviously depends upon your definition of " 'real' concern ", but I would personally say (in electrical terms) probably 'no' - in which case I suppose I would say that none deserved more than a C3.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

So what do you feel is wrong. I would not be really worried about what you describe.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

From the CU, an earth goes to the gas meter

I really hope it doesn't.

 

[flameport]

Single RCD = C3.
The rest - no code required.

 

[securespark]

I would be happier if the PEB to the water pipe came from the MET or CU's earth busbar, not direct from the spike.

 

[JohnW2]

I would be happier if the PEB to the water pipe came from the MET or CU's earth busbar, not direct from the spike.

I think we probably all would be happier with that - but do you really think that it is a "real concern"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[GaryGarden]

Hi,

Just wondering what code the following would give on an ECIR and if there is any 'real' concern in terms of electrical safety?

1) CU is 4 way and all circuits (lighting, sockets, shower and cooker) are covered by RCD on the main insolation switch. I gather this is because it is a TT supply. No other RCD's, just MCB's.

2) From the CU, an earth goes to the gas meter, a separate earth goes from the CUT to an earth stake and then an earth goes from the earth stake to the water stop cock.

3) The earth wires are about 6mm if not slightly less.

Wiring is from about 1997 and its for a downstarirs flat, with most cables under the floorboards, laying loose and not clipped.

Many thanks

ECIR's are carried out looking at current regs, however the compliance with older regs and often lack of compliance with current regs cannot mean a "fail", in such a circumstance a C3 should be given , a C3 means ‘Improvement recommended’ as iggifer above has stated unless unless the danger is as defined above by iggifer.
Point 1) Is the main switch a 100ma RCD? If so socket circuits and 'special locations' would be 30ma RCD protected under current regs.
Point 2) I dont understand this fully what is the gas bonded to the CU or MET, all bonding should go to the MET and then the spike, unless as EFLI raises that you don't need main bonding.
Point 3) That was probably fine in it's day and may still also be, but what 'earth' wires are we talking about? Or is it Main bonding that you mean. On a TT installation the main bonding on the Gas may need to be a lot thicker but that is subject to mainly enviromental factors, on a TN installation if you have BGas put a new boiler in for you then they will insist on 10mm. However this was probably all compliant at the time and the regs are not applied retrospectivley unless you are basically changing things electrically. So again a C3

As for cables 'laying loose' under floorboards then on a goundfloor property if they are below the depth of the joist then i would consider this a lot safer than clipped direct maybe 30mm below floorboard level.

 

[securespark]

do you really think that it is a "real concern"?

In all probability the conductor from the spike to the CU and the conductor from the spike to the water pipe are not one and the same, ie unbroken, so I would worry that the connection to the water pipe may become unreliable.

At least if the PEB came from the MET/ CU, it would stand a chance of being mechanically more secure and certainly less able to be affected by the elements.

 

[JohnW2]

do you really think that it is a "real concern"?

In all probability the conductor from the spike to the CU and the conductor from the spike to the water pipe are not one and the same, ie unbroken, so I would worry that the connection to the water pipe may become unreliable. ... At least if the PEB came from the MET/ CU, it would stand a chance of being mechanically more secure and certainly less able to be affected by the elements.

That's obviously all true, and is the reason why, as we have agreed we would both be happier if it were done 'properly'. Whether, in terms of the big picture, it represents a 'major concern' is rather different, and obviously an individual judgement.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stl]

Thanks for all the responses. I have obviously used the incorrect terminology and the odd typo!.

CUT should be CU and yes its main bonding and not earthling.
The bonding is to the CPC busbar in the CU (where all the other CPC's connect) and there does not appear to be a MET.
The main RCD for all circuits is 30mA, i.e. also the main CU isolator switch.
The gas meter is close to the CU and the bonding is in trunking.
The incoming water main is in the bathroom as a metal pipe but then downstream of the stopcock is all plastic pipe.
Bonding on gas and the incoming water (via the earth stake) is on the supply side of the meter / stopcock and within 600mm.

I am not doing the EICR but was thinking of getting one done in terms of property sale / rent.

Is there any legal requirements if C3 to bring it up to current regs?, and would it be any more safe if it was. Just trying to establish if its worth getting any upgrade works done, or in practice would it not make any difference.

Thanks

 

[Iggifer]

There's certainly no harm in getting one done, and I'm sure you will be surprised that it finds more than the few things you've pointed out, probably more alarming things too.

Absolutely no legal requirement to bring C3 up to regs. You don't strictly have to have any upgrade work done, it's only a 'Condition Report' after all. You'd be stupid not to put right a C1 and some C2's though.

 

[JohnW2]

The bonding is to the CPC busbar in the CU (where all the other CPC's connect) and there does not appear to be a MET.

It is very common to use the earth bar in the CU as the 'MET' and that is perfectly acceptable (actually better is some senses, since it reduces the number of connections in the various paths to earth etc.).

The main RCD for all circuits is 30mA, i.e. also the main CU isolator switch.

Fair enough. As you are aware, most people would interpret current regs to require that circuits be split between two or more RCDs (so that one fault does not take out everything), but there is no requirement to bring an existing system up to currents standards. A 30mA RCD affords the required protection as regards electric shocks.

The gas meter is close to the CU and the bonding is in trunking.

Are you saying that the bonding to the gas is directly from the CU?

The incoming water main is in the bathroom as a metal pipe but then downstream of the stopcock is all plastic pipe. Bonding on gas and the incoming water (via the earth stake) is on the supply side of the meter / stopcock and within 600mm.

If the incoming water supply turns into plastic immediately after the stopcosk, you obvioulsy have no choice but to bond it on the supply side of that stopcock. However, as has been said, that bonding really ought to go back to the CU's earth bar ('MET'), not to the earth spike.As for gas bonding, although what you describe makes total electrical sense, the regulations appear to require that the bonding be attached on the consumer's side of the meter (even though that makes less electrical sense!)

Is there any legal requirements if C3 to bring it up to current regs?, and would it be any more safe if it was.

There is certainly no requirement to bring up to current regs. The bonding issues are probably worth addressing, because they would hopefully be fairly simple. As for the single-RCD CU, upgrading it to a dual-RCD one would not make it any 'safer' electrically. The only sense in which it would be 'safer' would be in relation to falling down stairs or dropping a pot of boiling oil etc. if a fault caused the entire house to be plunged into darkness.

Kind Regards, John