How would you repair this?

blup said:

But to the extent that the building was already dismantled, by lifting the floorboards, would an EICR not have to address this?

Click to expand...

Obviously if visible, it would be noted but it depends what you mean by 'address'.

The EICR is a report; the inspector does not (have to) repair anything.



There is some insulation missing. This would not affect anything else. It would not be detected in an EICR.

blup said:

But to the extent that the building was already dismantled, by lifting the floorboards, would an EICR not have to address this?

Click to expand...

Of course. If an inspector saw what we have seen (or, probably, was merely 'made aware of it'), he/she would not only mention it on an EICR but would code it - at least as C2, if not C1.

However, RF (and the rest of us) are already aware of what he found, and I'm sure that RF intends to rectify it - so there's no discussion/argument about that.

I remind you that it was suggested that an EICR should be undertaken to ensure that (the rest of) the installation is "safe" - and, as I keep saying, someone undertaking an inspection for an EICR would not ('normally', if ever) lift other floorboards to determine whether other similar damage existed elsewhere - so an EICR's apparent indication that "the installation was safe" could easily give potentially dangerous 'false reassurance'.

Kind Regards, John

It makes me wonder if an EICR was commissioned and this damage was made known in advance, would there be any expectation that the inspector spent some time looking for more such damage?

SUNRAY said:

It makes me wonder if an EICR was commissioned and this damage was made known in advance, would there be any expectation that the inspector spent some time looking for more such damage?

Click to expand...

There might well be but, as I keep saying, I think one would then have to commission some sort of 'bespoke inspection', since a standard 'full EICR' (which is what was suggested) would not involve lifting of floorboards.

As I also said, one has to give some consideration to practicalities and the question of what can be considered 'realistic'. As I said, if I found rodent damage to a cable in my house (which I did), if there were then an expectation that I, or someone else, should undertake a comprehensive search for any other similar cable damage anywhere else in my (very large) house, it would involve an almost unthinkable amount of disruption (particularly given that most of the floorboards are T&G - and, of course, moistly under floor coverings) and, if I were paying someone to do it, probably 'thousands of pounds'.

Kind Regards, John

If the scope of an EICR can be significantly reduced (for example by only testing some, but not all, sockets on a given circuit) why it can it not be extended to include - at the electricians discretion - problems that manifest themselves, such as the damaged cables?

Blup

Back to the original problem, I think if I were pulling cables in that void, I'd want to turn all the circuits off that run in it, probably given the small nature of the installation turn all the cirucits off with the exception of a cirucit feeding a socket next to the board, if it exists, or if not either fit one, or (more likely) dob one in temporarym, in order to power the drill chargers/110v tx. I'd tape up where possible damaged cables while in the void and advsie in writing that something needs to be done about it properly (and note in 'comments on existing' on the EIC for the fire panel supply).

Is the fire alarm system being wired in MICC?

blup said:

If the scope of an EICR can be significantly reduced (for example by only testing some, but not all, sockets on a given circuit) why it can it not be extended to include - at the electricians discretion - problems that manifest themselves, such as the damaged cables?

Click to expand...

As I have said, anyone can commission any electrician to undertake any sort of Inspection and Testing (with any scope) they want done, but that I&T would then probably be something other than "an EICR" ("full" or otherwise). This is therefore really a fairly pedantic terminological discussion, stemming from the initial suggestion that a "full EICR" should be undertaken on the building that RF mentioned.

BS7671 says very little about such inspections. For a start, it does not use the term "EICR" (abbreviated or in full) at all, other than (I would say reasonably) as the title of the report which is produced - it refers to what we are talking about as "Periodic Inspection and Testing". It says nothing specific about scope, the nearest it gets being " A generic list of examples of items requiring inspection is given in Appendix 6." (which is simply example forms for the report, together with associated notes. For what it's worth, whilst it talks about 'limitations' of scope (to be agreed in advance by the person commissioning the report, and recorded on the report form), it says nothing about 'extensions' of scope.

To consider the realities, the hidden cables of virtually any electrical installation could be suffering from extensive rodent damage which (as in RF's case) would not be identified (or event suspected) by a "full EICR" - and, indeed, that would very probably have been the case (and 'everyone would be happy') had a "full EICR" been undertaken the day before RF discovered the cable damage.

When some such cable damage is found (and even if electrical testing reveals no problems), the ideal is obviously to expose all the other cables in the installation to see if there is any other such damage - but, as I've said, in some cases (like my large house) that would not really be practical. However, I think the main point is that, once an electrician has tested the insulation and found no problems, that additional 'ideal' inspection is not something that requires an electrician, or is really appropriate as part of an 'electrical inspection'. It requires no electrical skills or electrical test gear to lift floorboards and look for visible signs of cable damage (that is not detected by electrical testing) - that clearly doesn't require an electrician, and to pay an electrician's 'hourly rate' for doing that would (in my opinion) be a little silly. That's why I said at the very start that, if it were me, I would probably myself lift at least a few nearby floorboards in an attempt to get a feel for the extent of a problem - and then, depending on what I found, decide "what next?".

Kind Regards, John

Is the scope of the "full EICR" really excluded by the British Standard that you quote?

B.S 7671 - at 653.2 - requires the EICR to include details of "those parts of the installation that have been inspected" as well as any "damage, defects, deterioration or dangerous conditions". As they are already exposed the frayed cables must surely fall somewhere within the "four D's".

Blup

blup said:

Is the scope of the "full EICR" really excluded by the British Standard that you quote?

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

blup said:

B.S 7671 - at 653.2 - requires the EICR to include details of "those parts of the installation that have been inspected" as well as any "damage, defects, deterioration or dangerous conditions". As they are already exposed the frayed cables must surely fall somewhere within the "four D's".

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that but I think you may be continuing to miss my point. All of this part of the discussion arose from my response to your writing:

blup said:

Isn't this crying out for a full EICR ...

Click to expand...

... by which I assumed you meant "... to identify any defects other than (i.e. in addition to) that already discovered by RF" (and which might well have been repaired by RF before any subsequent "full EICR" took place) - was that not what you meant?

If that was what you meant, what would you expect an electrician to do if asked to undertake "a full EICR" and was told that some rodent-damaged cables had recently been discovered and repaired. Would you really expect him/her to go around lifting floorboards all over the place (which certainly would not be done as part of a standard "full EICR") - and, if not, what would you expect him/her to do in order to achieve whatever you felt would be helpful about having a "full EICR" undertaken?

Kind Regards, John

Adam_151 said:

Back to the original problem, I think if I were pulling cables in that void, I'd want to turn all the circuits off that run in it, probably given the small nature of the installation turn all the cirucits off with the exception of a cirucit feeding a socket next to the board, if it exists, or if not either fit one, or (more likely) dob one in temporarym, in order to power the drill chargers/110v tx. I'd tape up where possible damaged cables while in the void and advsie in writing that something needs to be done about it properly (and note in 'comments on existing' on the EIC for the fire panel supply).

Is the fire alarm system being wired in MICC?

Click to expand...

I have been doing exactly that. Powering down the entire installation and working with battery tools and lighting when I’m near or fishing in the void.

At the moment I have wrapped the exposed parts I can see with self amalgamating tape whilst we work out a more permanent solution.

The vast majority of the fire alarm is being done in MICC, with the exception of a few low risk areas which are surface mounted out of any void and wired in FP200.

I’ve just got a new pot wrench made by pyrotenax which I would highly recommend to anyone who installs MICC!

.

RF Lighting said:

I have been doing exactly that. Powering down the entire installation and working with battery tools and lighting when I’m near or fishing in the void.

At the moment I have wrapped the exposed parts I can see with self amalgamating tape whilst we work out a more permanent solution.

The vast majority of the fire alarm is being done in MICC, with the exception of a few low risk areas which are surface mounted out of any void and wired in FP200.

I’ve just got a new pot wrench made by pyrotenax which I would highly recommend to anyone who installs MICC!

View attachment 202910

Click to expand...

I've done only a handful of MICC jobs, maybe 10 joints in total so never purchsed tools. I didn't find it as difficult to do the work as others seemed to indicate, that was until the last job and I was able to borrow the proper kit.
OMFG what a difference, I felt quite cheated that I only needed to do 2 ends.

I got trained on MICC to use side cutters to strip the cable and pliers to screw on the pots.

The only proper tool I had access to was a pot crimp.

securespark said:

I got trained on MICC to use side cutters to strip the cable and pliers to screw on the pots.

Click to expand...

I use a knife to score the copper sheath then long nose pliers to 'unwind' it down to the score.

[/QUOTE]The only proper tool I had access to was a pot crimp.[/QUOTE]Hold the pot in pliers or 5 holes in the circular cutout and 8" cutters [for the length of the jaws] to make 4 nips on the rim.

Using the proper tools I did both ends of a cable in a 1/4 of the time it takes to do one end without the tools.

No contest.