Earthing the gas mains

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Thanks. That's what I would have expected. However, of the things you mention, I think that only the metal lights without CPCs and the damaged light accessories (if sufficiently damaged) would get close to qualifying as the 'seriously hazardous problems' I was talking of.

IP4X and IP2X is an non-conformity and action must be taken.
Goes down as a C1 on my reports.

Interesting. What was the cause of the two IR problems?

In (Test 1) I have only just just done the the EICR, the house is empty being prepared for the rental, market. So still awaiting the owners instructions to do further investigations. But from what I have seen the wall in the front room has been recently plastered, so could be buried joint in wall or damp in to accessory on RFC.
The garage distribution circuit runs in T&E under the house, leaves property outside to a small flagged area ( cable under flags) in SWA then in to garage. The circuit within garage when disconnected from distribution is fine. So could be damp in junction under floor or damaged cable!
One of the flags that the cable runs beneath is broken in two, so not sure how deep the cable is buried.
(Test 3) Down to lighting circuit insulation being absolutely shot!

Is finding IR problems in 2/3 consecutive EICRs 'usual', or was this a bit unusual?

I have found 4 IR issues in the last 6 houses I have been to. Normally where the previous owner liked doing a bit of DIY!

 

[JohnW2]

IP2X and IP4X is an non-conformity and action must be taken. Goes down as a C1 on my reports.

I agree that they are both non-compliant and that you therefore have no choice other than to code them and, depending on circumstances, I might regard an IP2X problem as a 'seriously hazardous problem'. However, although I accept that you have got to record and code them, I wouldn't put a minor degree of IP4X non-compliance on the top of a CU (or excessive exposed copper at terminations within a CU) in the same category.

In (Test 1) ... could be buried joint in wall or damp in to accessory on RFC. ... [garage cct] could be damp in junction under floor or damaged cable!
(Test 3) Down to lighting circuit insulation being absolutely shot!

Fair enough. In test (3) you had, of course, already detected the insulation problem in the lighting circuit by visual inspection, so you presumably didn't need an IR test to tell you about that one.

I have found 4 IR issues in the last 6 houses I have been to. Normally where the previous owner liked doing a bit of DIY!

Interesting. That does rather surprise me. I wonder what other people's experiences are?

Kind Regards, John.
Edits: typo and perpetuation thereof corrected

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

IP4X is the minimum requirement for the top of a CU.

 

[EFLImpudence]

IP4X - unless it's in the shower.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

IP4X - unless it's in the shower.

sorry brain somewhere else!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Fair enough. In test (3) you had, of course, already detected the insulation problem in the lighting circuit by visual inspection, so you presumably didn't need an IR test to tell you about that one.

Still need to put a measurement down on schedules of test

 

[JohnW2]

sorry brain somewhere else!

.. and my apologies for perpetuating the the typo; I have corrected my post.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Still need to put a measurement down on schedules of test

To keep the paperwork happy, perhaps - but once you had detected 'insulation failure' by visual inspection, the result you got by measurement obviously became totally irrelevant - to you or anyone else.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

IP4X - unless it's in the shower.

Surely the shower is as good a place as any to dispose of the metabolic byproduct of Australian beer?

Better than most, in fact, e.g. train carriages, shop doorways, beds....

 

[EFLImpudence]

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

To keep the paperwork happy, perhaps - but once you had detected 'insulation failure' by visual inspection, the result you got by measurement obviously became totally irrelevant - to you or anyone else.
Kind Regards, John.

After the visual it was quite obvious that the circuit was unsatisfactory, but as back up to my initial findings, I will also carry out test procedures on all circuits. As to satisfy the paperwork (SECTION H: SCHEDULE(S)
... schedule(s) of inspection and ... schedule(s) of test results are attached. The attached schedule(s) are part of this document
and this report is valid only when they are attached to it).
the client and I.
It was strange that the circuit was still fully functional.

PS. thank you for the corrections, don't know where my head was