EICR and Bonding

[nordberg73]

Hi,

Looking for a bit of advice, please.

I'm midway through updating a Victorian terrace and I'm looking at the electrics... The house will be a rental, and I'm aware the EICR will fail as they CU has no RCD protection and is very old. I'm happy to do get that sorted, but I'm less sure about the bonding.. At the moment, there's a continuous bonding run from the CU to the water entry point. There's no bonding to the gas as far as I can see (the gas comes in right next to the water). Running a new length of bonding for the gas will be a seriously invasive job. My question is, will I fail the EICR without dedicated gas bonding? I keep seeing the word "practicable" being floated about from the regs. It's far from "practicable" for me to run a new, dedicated gas bond. Am I scuppered, or will the water bonding suffice?

Thanks!

 

[flameport]

Bonding is required, the only 'where practicable' part relates to exactly where it's connected. Ideally where the gas pipe enters the property, or the nearest accessible point otherwise, as it's often impractical to access the exact point that it enters.

If the water and gas are adjacent, why would adding the bonding to the gas be 'seriously invasive'?

 

[EFLImpudence]

If required, the gas pipe can be connected to the water bonding conductor.

 

[nordberg73]

Bonding is required, the only 'where practicable' part relates to exactly where it's connected. Ideally where the gas pipe enters the property, or the nearest accessible point otherwise, as it's often impractical to access the exact point that it enters.

If the water and gas are adjacent, why would adding the bonding to the gas be 'seriously invasive'?

It would be invasive to run a whole new run from the CU to the gas as it goes up/down walls (behind plaster) and under floors... If it's a case of just joining the gas bond termination to the existing water bond termination, it's a piece of cake.... My understanding, however, was that it would need to be a dedicated CU to gas run rather than a CU to water to gas run..

 

[nordberg73]

If required, the gas pipe can be connected to the water bonding conductor.

That would be very simple of that's acceptable with the regs/EICR..

 

[EFLImpudence]

My understanding, however, was that it would need to be a dedicated CU to gas run rather than a CU to water to gas run..

Nope. In fact you could even use the water pipe itself or other metal parts as the bonding conductor.

That would be very simple if that's acceptable with the regs/EICR..

It is.

If the inspector says it is not, get a different inspector who knows what he is doing.

 

[nordberg73]

Nope. In fact you could even use the water pipe itself or other metal parts as the bonding conductor.


It is.

If the inspector says it is not, get a different inspector who knows what he is doing.

Thanks. You've cheered me up! Having a bit of a 'mare with this house, and this had the capacity to make things a lot worse....

 

[EFLImpudence]

 

[SUNRAY]

The thing I find with such a design is inspectors tend to stipulate a continuous run from the MET (main earth terminal) to each point (please let's not get into the rights or wrongs, I'm just pointing out what I see on reports). That is dealt with at the water by inserting the existing earth cable and the new link cable into a crimp lug such that removing the water bond screw will not disconnect the gas bond.
Crude but hopefully explains:

 

[JohnW2]

Nope. In fact you could even use the water pipe itself or other metal parts as the bonding conductor.

One could, but, if one did it to a significant extent, I wouldn't put money on an 'EICR inspector' necessarily seeing eye-to-eye with that, without 'argument'

However, as you've said, in the OP's case that issue doesn't really arise - all he needs is a very short bit of cable 'extending' the bonding conductor from water pipe to adjacent gas pipe.

Mind you, no-one seems to have asked where the gas pipe 'comes from', so it might not even be an extraneous-c-p which requires bonding.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The thing I find with such a design is inspectors tend to stipulate a continuous run from the MET (main earth terminal) to each point ...

Yes, we've seen that, but it seems to be a 'requirement' which they have 'made up' - together with the one about not having any 'joints' in a bonding conductor!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Mind you, no-one seems to have asked where the gas pipe 'comes from', so it might not even be an extraneous-c-p which requires bonding.

I did write "If required".

Yes, we've seen that, but it seems to be a 'requirement' which they have 'made up' - together with the one about not having any 'joints' in a bonding conductor!

Exactly.

543.2.1 A protective conductor may consist of one or more of the following:
(i) A single-core cable
(ii) A conductor in a cable
(iii) An insulated or bare conductor in a common enclosure with insulated live conductors
(iv) A fixed bare or insulated conductor
(v) A metal covering, for example, the sheath, screen or armouring of a cable
(vi) A metal conduit, metallic cable management system or other enclosure or electrically continuous support
system for conductors
(vii) an extraneous-conductive-part complying with Regulation 543.2.6.

Please ask them how they make those things continuous.

 

[JohnW2]

I did write "If required".

You did, and I was pointing out that no-one seems to have asked the OP the question which would help to decide whether it (bonding) is 'required'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If the inspector says it is not, get a different inspector who knows what he is doing.

.... Please ask them how they make those things continuous.

The trouble with those (very reasonable) statements appears to be that, if one takes the 'landlord legislation' literally, it seems to be strictly the case that one cannot 'disregard and get repeated' and/or 'question' an initial EICR (with which one is not happy). It seems that once an EICR has been undertaken, one is obliged to provide the tenant (and LA 'if requested') with a copy, and obliged to address any C1/C2s on it. Is that not the case?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Yes, we've seen that, but it seems to be a 'requirement' which they have 'made up' - together with the one about not having any 'joints' in a bonding conductor!

Kind Regards, John

Exactly.

543.2.1 A protective conductor may consist of one or more of the following:
(i) A single-core cable
(ii) A conductor in a cable
(iii) An insulated or bare conductor in a common enclosure with insulated live conductors
(iv) A fixed bare or insulated conductor
(v) A metal covering, for example, the sheath, screen or armouring of a cable
(vi) A metal conduit, metallic cable management system or other enclosure or electrically continuous support
system for conductors
(vii) an extraneous-conductive-part complying with Regulation 543.2.6.

Please ask them how they make those things continuous.

Exactly why I wrote:

(please let's not get into the rights or wrongs, I'm just pointing out what I see on reports).

However the problem has been created by the error on the report and something needs to be done to clear the error.

AFAIC my 'solution' is simple, satisfies current report and future proofs... so much easier than a dispute and additionally prevents the gas becoming isolated when the water pipes are replaced with plastic and need for bond ceases to exist. Well as long as the ignorant plumber/kitchen fitter/bathroom fitter doesn't simply chop the wire away.