EICR and spurs

[Ant1]

Hi all,

I have 2 questions:
1) Could a spur socket cause a C2 on a EICR? (i.e. not part of the ring)
2) One of the wall lights is connected to the back of a socket (i.e. spurring from the wall socket, if I can say that...), could this also cause a C2? (note there is no earth between the light and the socket)

I am asking because I am about to get a EICR done and would like to know if I need to remediate the above beforehand.

Thanks a lot,
Ant

 

[plugwash]

Spurs should normally only supply one single or double socket or one fused connection unit, as long as your spur socket is the only thing on the spur it should be fine.

Regarding your wall light, it's ok to run a wall light off the socket circuit but there needs to be a FCU to provide over current protection. There should be an earth to every point of utilisation, even if the fitting currently installed doesn't require one.

 

[Ant1]

Thanks for the reply!

Regarding point 2, the wall light cable is actually inside the wall and then pops out just at the back of the wall socket (i.e. behind the plasterboard). Since it is an unearth cable with no FCU, I guess I will have to install a new cable running along the wall, through a FCU, to reach the socket.

Since the cable won't be hidden anymore, it won't be aesthetically pleasing but at least up to the regulations and safe.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Regarding your wall light, it's ok to run a wall light off the socket circuit but there needs to be a FCU to provide over current protection.

Not if the cable doesn't require it.

 

[plugwash]

IIRC for ES, BC, SES and SBC lampholders BS7671 specifies a max fuse rating (I think it's 6A for SES/SBC and 16A for ES/BC).

For other fittings it would presumably come down to manufacturers instructions, but I'd be very surpised if any manufacturer said a 32A protective device was acceptable.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Does it? or DYRC?

How can one lamp cause an overload?

 

[Ant1]

Would it best if I just leave the lamp connected as such and let the electrician do the test? (bear in mind there is no earth cable, doomed to fail I guess, though there is no earth connection on the lamp which seems pointless...)

If it fails, would the electrician be willing to fix it on the spot (while paying off course)? Or will I be asked to get this sorted separately and pay for another EICR?

 

[ericmark]

Since 1966 all cables have required earths to lights even if the light its self does not its self need one.

Lighting circuits are limited to 16 amp, so unless some overload is fitted then it will not comply.

The problem with an EICR is there is no firm limit it is up to the inspector, this is the whole problem with an EICR it was never designed as an MOT but that is what England is trying to make it do.

 

[Ant1]

I went for an inspection and there is actually an earth cable going all the way from the back of socket to the light, my bad, sorry about that. The only issue is that there is no FCU, I will let the electrician decide if I need to add one.

I have another bigger issue though, I do not have any RCD, just a older style fuse box (which was inspected by British Gas 4 years ago). As far as I know the 18th edition wiring regs are not retrospective, hence it should pass with a C3 if in working order. However I am currently getting quotes from electrician right now, might be more effective to get a RCD install before an EICR.

 

[RF Lighting]

It’s difficult to say from one photo, but looking at the age of that consumer unit, it is unlikely that you will receive a satisfactory EICR.

For a start, you have no RCD protection to any circuit, and it is unlikely that your bonding will be compliant.

The regulations are not retrospective so you are not forced to constantly upgrade your installation, but an EICR will be carried out to the current regulations, and non compliances will be noted down. Depending on how unsafe each non compliance is will determine what code it receives.

 

[ericmark]

The guide for landlords from government is rather poor, but it does say

The inspection will find out if:

• any electrical installations are overloaded
• there are any potential electric shock risks and fire hazards
• there is any defective electrical work
• there is a lack of earthing or bonding – these are 2 ways of preventing electrical shocks that are built into electrical installations

Which seems to say they do not consider an RCD as a way to prevent electric shocks. However the big question is even if not required, should you not provide it anyway? When one views court cases where the tenant has been killed, and only on a death does it seem to reach a court, very heavy fines are given out including custodial.

I back in 1992 decided RCD protection would be good for the protection of my son, how I can then say to some one else they should not provide it seems wrong. Technically you may get away without it, but I personally would not want to take the chance with other peoples welfare, might take the chance myself but not ask others to take the chance.

 

[Ant1]

I agree with both above statements, hence the reason I am starting getting quotes for both RCD + EICR.

I would just like to communicate one thing; I lived in this flat for 15 years, I am moving out and not able to sell due to personal reasons caused by COVID, hence becoming a landlord for the first time. Except from the above fuse box, all the fittings (i.e. sockets, switches and lights) are new. The electrics has been checked in the past, including earth and the cables, though not to the extend of a EICR. I have purchased a new cooker as well. All electrical items will go through PAT testing after the EICR. The irony is that the place I just moved into has a far worse electrical system (not sure why EICR is not mandatory like the home report...), hence putting the well being of the future tenants before my own family. Just wanted to highlight this as the last post makes me look like a bad landlord, which I am only becoming...

 

[ericmark]

I have just noted "Glasgow" Scottish regulations are slightly different. And yes I left a house with all RCD protection to move into one with a fuse box, the buyer report said the was a disused fuse box between ceiling and roof, it was not disused. We ended up selling the old house to my son, which due to COVID19 I have not been paid for, as he has been unable to rent or sell his old house, I have been very lucky there was loads that needed doing before being sold, had my son not decided to move in it would not have even gone on market yet. And repairs to new house on hold due to lack of materials.

It does seem this 28 days given in England is daft, I live in Wales, and found wrong RCBO's were supplied (RCD and MCB combined) now been on order from local supplier for 6 weeks, how can anyone expect repairs and upgrades to be done at this time?

 

[JohnW2]

The inspection will find out if: ......

• there are any potential electric shock risks and fire hazards

Which seems to say they do not consider an RCD as a way to prevent electric shocks.

What makes you think that they don't regard the absence of RCD protection as a "potential electric shock risk"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

What makes you think that they don't regard the absence of RCD protection as a "potential electric shock risk"?

Kind Regards, John

Because they list what does produce a risk of shock, and RCD is not in the list. The use of RCD protection has never protected from electric shock, it has only reduced the time you can get the shock down to 40 mS. Well OK it may result in it tripping before you touch in some cases.

The

Ensure national standards for electrical safety are met. These are set out in the 18th edition of the ‘Wiring Regulations’, which are published as British Standard 7671.

does seem at a glance to direct to all what BS 7671:2018 says, but BS 7671:2018 says in the regulations what date it covers the designs from, note designed not installed. So to comply if designed before the date listed then it is covered by and earlier edition, so this means the edition used as defined by latest edition is the edition in force when designed. So it is not retrospective.

As to if this was what was intended is another question, and the courts could well clarify should a case go to court, and the courts could decide the law intended to require RCD protection, but it would require a court case. The point is does anyone what to be involved in a test case? My wife is the English student and often points out errors. There is a battery advert on TV at moment where they say they can't say of illegal reasons, which is a double negative so it really says they must tell you? I am sure we all make mistakes in reading rule books as it seems they are designed to be hard to decipher. But the courts can decide different to how we read it.