- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,739
- Reaction score
- 452
- Country
May I ask where what states this?
can I replace mcb myself ?
- Thread starter Gary111
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eicr failed
Sponsored Links
On page 1, there is a summary stating whether your installation is satisfactory/unsatisfactory. Is it showing unsatisfactory?
If it unsatisfactory, there should be observations listed on page 2. Can you check what is listed and the codes?
It is easier advising when you tell us what is in the report.
Sponsored Links
I am sure you can see the flaw in their explanation.
If you do something you shouldn't in the future it could be "potentially dangerous" (the criterion for a C2), obviously means that at present it is not potentially dangerous.
That they are quoting "Best Practice Guides" rather than The Wiring Regulations is surely an indication that they are not experienced nor knowledgeable enough to be carrying out EICRs.
Regulation 433.3.1
"A device for protection against overload need not be provided:
(ii) for a conductor which, because of the characteristics of the load or the supply, is not likely to carry overload
current, provided that the conductor is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements
of Section 434"
It will be protected against fault current by the 50A MCB.
what happens if someone puts a nail thru the 6mm cable ?
I guess the MCB will quickly trip
I guess the MCB will quickly trip
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,626
- Reaction score
- 2,661
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
Maybe I have got it wrong, I have looked and now can't find it. However as far as doing the EICR myself it does state:-
so if you can't do the remedial work, then your not qualified.
Each time I read it I seem to find some thing else.
so it seems if for example there is a fault on the immersion heater, but there is central heating so not really required, one can't simply isolate it?
The problem to me is the check list to satisfy that the inspector is qualified to do the inspection.
Where is this new guidance for landlords? I can find many web pages which say what they think should the qualifications should be, but not a government one.The Electrical Safety Standards No 321 said:
Just to point out that, on the certificate relating to the 50A MCB, the mentioned 433.1 and 533.2.1 both relate to "overload protection".
As a shower and its adequate cable do not need overload protection, neither of the mentioned regulations applies - so that is wrong as well.
As a shower and its adequate cable do not need overload protection, neither of the mentioned regulations applies - so that is wrong as well.
He also emailed me
That they are quoting "Best Practice Guides" rather than The Wiring Regulations is surely an indication that they are not experienced nor knowledgeable enough to be carrying out EICRs – that’s a bit of a presumption, they no nothing about our experienceand the best practice guide is a recognised document by the NICEIC, ECA, EAL, British Gas, Beama, AESM, BSI, Certsure, City & Guilds, IET, Napit, Spaces & Select so I’m not sure how this means we are not knowledgeable enough when all these companies support the document.
The bottom line is that this is poor design and there’s nothing stopping someone in the future installing a bigger rated shower which could overload the cable.
The circuit does not comply with Regulation 433.1.1:
The operating characteristics of a device protecting a conductor against overload shall satisfy the following conditions:
(i) The rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) is not less than the design current (Ib) of the circuit, and
(ii) the rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) does not exceed the lowest of the current-carrying capacities (Iz) of any of the conductors of the circuit
Its like saying lets just install 32amp MCB’s or bigger MCB’s than cables can carry on all circuits, we know that the circuits will use less amps than the cable can carry, they are talking utter non-sense.
I spoke to the NICEIC technical helpline and they agreed.
That they are quoting "Best Practice Guides" rather than The Wiring Regulations is surely an indication that they are not experienced nor knowledgeable enough to be carrying out EICRs – that’s a bit of a presumption, they no nothing about our experienceand the best practice guide is a recognised document by the NICEIC, ECA, EAL, British Gas, Beama, AESM, BSI, Certsure, City & Guilds, IET, Napit, Spaces & Select so I’m not sure how this means we are not knowledgeable enough when all these companies support the document.
The bottom line is that this is poor design and there’s nothing stopping someone in the future installing a bigger rated shower which could overload the cable.
The circuit does not comply with Regulation 433.1.1:
The operating characteristics of a device protecting a conductor against overload shall satisfy the following conditions:
(i) The rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) is not less than the design current (Ib) of the circuit, and
(ii) the rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) does not exceed the lowest of the current-carrying capacities (Iz) of any of the conductors of the circuit
Its like saying lets just install 32amp MCB’s or bigger MCB’s than cables can carry on all circuits, we know that the circuits will use less amps than the cable can carry, they are talking utter non-sense.
I spoke to the NICEIC technical helpline and they agreed.
They don't write the regulations.
It is a guide for people who don't themselves know or can't work it out.
That is irrelevant.
It doesn't have to. See 433.3.1
The conductor does not require protection against overload.
They are saying the circuit does not comply with a regulation that does not apply to it.
Only if the circuit requires overload protection. Your shower circuit does not.
He is showing his lack of knowledge and experience.
It is the same with your one socket circuit. It is protected against overload by the 13A fuse in the plug; not the MCB.
Well, then they are wrong as well.
It is not unheard of and they often make up their own rules.
I realise that you are on a losing battle as they are not going to back down, but perhaps they will have learned something and will be better in the future.
Oh - why do they have to ask NICEIC? What does that tell you?
It would not surprise me if a lot of inspectors would, indeed, 'agree' (i.e. act/code the same), but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Others may disagree with me (but EFLI certainly seems to agree!) but, for what it's worth, my personal view is that an EICR should relate to an installation 'as it is' at the time of the inspection, and should not consider what the situation would be if someone subsequently made some (incorrect) change to the installation (such as installing a larger shower).
As everyone seems to agree, a 9.5kW shower cannot overload a 6mm² cable (and a 50A MCB would almost certainly provide adequate 'fault protection' - and that could be confirmed), so the situation, 'as it is', is totally compliant with BS7671.
The argument being presented in justification of the C2 results from an obsessive (and incorrect) belief that a 6mm² cable can never be adequately protected by a 50A MCB, on the part of people who have not read, or are not able to understand, all of the regulations in BS7671.
The argument that some idiotic changes in the future might render the installation non-compliant could be taken to silly extremes.
Kind Regards, John
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
Sponsored Links
