EICR Coding Opinions

[Starspark1]

Hi Guys and Gals,

When carrying out an EICR for a domestic installation that has a 80amp 30ma main RCD switch for all final circuits, would any of you in your opinions say this requires an observation code? If so what?

Regards,

Starspark1

 

[RMS]

Hmmmm..... Do you think this 'gives rise to danger'?

 

[Lectrician]

c3

 

[Starspark1]

In my opinion no. In certain situations i could see why it may be undesirable. But not particularly give rise to danger. But that's my opinion and i want to know others opinions hence why i asked.

What do you think?

 

[Starspark1]

c3

So would you say that improvement would contribute to a SIGNIFICANT enhancement of the safety of the installation?

 

[securespark]

C3.

But I guess you're looking at the loading, as well as the "all circuits on one RCD" aspect.

As for safety, you could say that segregating circuits could make the installation safer.

 

[RMS]

The majority will probably suggest a code 3. Although this obviously complied with an earlier edition on the regulations. An observation code 3 is suggesting this gives rise to danger. (Failure of lighting circuits and so on) regulation 314.

If it was me, I would issue no observation code and make a comment only as this complied with an earlier edition of the regulations. It was fine all those years ago.

 

[JohnW2]

The majority will probably suggest a code 3. Although this obviously complied with an earlier edition on the regulations. An observation code 3 is suggesting this gives rise to danger. (Failure of lighting circuits and so on) regulation 314. If it was me, I would issue no observation code and make a comment only as this complied with an earlier edition of the regulations. It was fine all those years ago.

I personally think that's probably a very sensible approach.

By talking about safety in relation to 314, one is, as you imply, moving away from 'electrical safety' to more general concepts of safety. Although that is clearly to some extent how the regs now view the situation, if I were a 'man in the street' who had comissioned an EICR, I think I would want its formal report to be restricted to matters of electrical safety.

However, I would probably also want to be 'told' that any fault in the house would result in loss of all power (including lighting), so that I could make my own judgement as to whether this 'general matter of safery' was something I was happy to live with.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

If it was me, I would issue no observation code and make a comment only as this complied with an earlier edition of the regulations. It was fine all those years ago.

So were 2 pin sockets and fused neutrals...

C3 for me.

 

[securespark]

I can kind of see RMS's POV. He's saying electrically speaking, he can't see a danger with an RCD incomer, only a danger from falls due to lighting failure.

And I can see your point, Rob, that 2 pins & fused N's were acceptable in the past, but not now. And they are an electrical hazard.

But I'm with Rob. Regardless of how the danger arises, it is still a potential danger.

 

[JohnW2]

If it was me, I would issue no observation code and make a comment only as this complied with an earlier edition of the regulations. It was fine all those years ago.

So were 2 pin sockets and fused neutrals... C3 for me.

... and if I were the commisoner of that EICR, I would expect no less. However, they are genuine issues of 'electrical safety' - which, as I said, I regard as being different from, say, the possible consequences of lost lighting.

If 314 had never appeared in the regs, I doubt that many electricians would even have thought to mention the potential 'lost lighting' issue to a customer, any more than they would routinely advise emergency lighting in residential properties (in case of power cuts or cutout fuse operation) or comment on the inadequacy (unsafeness) of lighting in the vicinity of cooking facilities or machinery such as power tools etc. etc.

.. but that's all obviously a big case of 'IMO'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

C3 is only 'improvement recommended', i.e. bring up to current regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

I can kind of see RMS's POV. He's saying electrically speaking, he can't see a danger with an RCD incomer, only a danger from falls due to lighting failure. ... And I can see your point, Rob, that 2 pins & fused N's were acceptable in the past, but not now. And they are an electrical hazard. ... But I'm with Rob. Regardless of how the danger arises, it is still a potential danger.

All true - but as I've just written to RF, how far should one take this? Many kitchens are positioned such that they can enjoy absolutely no light from an 'upstairs lighting circuit' - so what (with an 'ideal' separation of circuits', as compliant with 314 as most people get) if something upstairs (shower?) trips the RCD which takes out the downstairs lighting whilst someone is working with pots of boiling water/oil at the cooker? Should you advise emergency lighting in the kitchen in order to achieve copliance with 314?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RMS]

C3 for me.

Without even ascertaining more information about the type of property? (Bungalow/house over two floors etc.)

What if a house over two floors has the landing light fed from upstairs lights switched 2 way(up and down) but the ground floor light is fed from downstairs lights switched from downstairs only and power is lost to the upstairs lights. Surly the occupant is at risk on the upstairs landing in the middle of the night and this is a conventional wiring setup in domestic dwellings.

Maybe we should start installing emergency lighting to take into consideration the loss of power from the DNO or akey payment meter running out if credit in the middle of the night.

 

[RMS]

C3 is only 'improvement recommended', i.e. bring up to current regulations.

Providing the observation 'gives rise to danger' that is.