EICR Fail Codes

[JohnW2]

Well, we only suppose an EICR is what is required because as far as we are concerned, that is all there can be.

It's not really just a case of our supposition. Albeit 'not law' the associated Guidance document makes it clear that they are (at least, currently) talking about EICRs - and specifically/explicitly that it is the C1s and C2s (but not C3s) that must be "remedied within 28 days".

Quite. Just a lot of unnecessary work being done. .... Was the legislation really necessary at all? ... Unscrupulous landlords will continue to be unscrupulous.

It's not for me to say whether the legislation was 'necessary'. However, if it is 'deemed necessary' then there obviously would, at least in theory, be ways in which it could be made more 'effective' - after all, I don't think that many people would say that, because of reasons similar to what you are thinking of, we 'should not bother' with things like MOT tests (even driving tests) etc. etc.

Electrically unknowledgeable landlords giving a piece of paper to electrically unknowledgeable tenants that could say anything such that, as with much legislation, it will not really improve anything but just lead to someone - not necessarily the correct someone - to blame when something horrible happens.

With things 'as they are' I think you're essentially correct. However, if there were a way (and it can't be 'impossible') of having a system which resulted in a bit of paper confirming that (with a reasonable degree of correctness/confidence) an electrical installation was 'adequately safe', it could be said that that would serve a useful purpose, couldn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

The way the law is written seems to mean that the EICR is 'god', in that anything to which the inspector gives a C1 or C2 is automatically required (by law) to be 'remedied within 28 days', regardless of how wrong/daft the coding may be.

Is there a any degree of wrongness or daftness? Was there not one recently where firestopping between pipes through a ceiling was on the EICR (found it, https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/eicr-tester-exceeding-remit-and-the-regs.550857). Taking it to the extremes, if I was given a C2/3 for a squeaky hinge on the door to the cupboard with the consumer unit in it I'd be ignoring it, not appealing it.

If that is reasonable then why not ignore other things which (genuinely) should not be on the EICR.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's not for me to say whether the legislation was 'necessary'. However, if it is 'deemed necessary' then there obviously would, at least in theory, be ways in which it could be made more 'effective' - after all, I don't think that many people would say that, because of reasons similar to what you are thinking of, we 'should not bother' with things like MOT tests (even driving tests) etc. etc.

I presume the things you mention were introduced because there were numerous accidents and deaths on the roads and the cause was poorly maintained vehicles and poor driving.

This is not the case with electrical installations in dwellings - not to mention only rented dwellings are affected.


A better analogy would be the requirements for RCDs nearly everywhere which you, yourself, question.

 

[JohnW2]

Is there a any degree of wrongness or daftness? Was there not one recently where firestopping between pipes through a ceiling was on the EICR (found it, https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/eicr-tester-exceeding-remit-and-the-regs.550857). Taking it to the extremes, if I was given a C2/3 for a squeaky hinge on the door to the cupboard with the consumer unit in it I'd be ignoring it, not appealing it.

The problem is that 'ignoring it' does not seem to be an option.

A copy of the EICR has to be sent to the LA. If it is not confirmed (by an electrician) that all the C1s and C2s on it have been 'remedied' within 28 days, then the LA will (can) 'take action' - which can include having the 'remedial work' undertaken and then recovering the cost from the landlord.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I presume the things you mention were introduced because there were numerous accidents and deaths on the roads and the cause was poorly maintained vehicles and poor driving. ... This is not the case with electrical installations in dwellings - not to mention only rented dwellings are affected. ... A better analogy would be the requirements for RCDs nearly everywhere which you, yourself, question.

My comments were prefaced by "IF it is 'deemed necessary' and I agree that you and I might not think that is the case.

Mind you, I don't think we (at least, I) know enough to be certain about that background. All we know about with any reasonably degree of 'certainty' (and even that, far from perfect) is the number of deaths due to domestic electrocution - and, as you imply, the number of such deaths is incredibly low overall, let alone in rented dwellings.

However, I have no idea as to how many injuries (in the widest sense) there are due to deficient electrical installations, in particular how many injuries (and deaths) are caused (genuinely) 'electric fires' due to deficiencies in electrical installations. I strongly suspect that even those things are not enough to justify the need for the legislation, but I don't know for sure.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

then the LA will (can) 'take action'

I'd welcome that for a squeaky hinge on a door, do you think they would?

 

[JohnW2]

I'd welcome that for a squeaky hinge on a door, do you think they would?

Goodness only knows - don't forget that Jobsworth's who need to 'tick boxes' are probably capable of almost anything!

One would obviously hope that in cases as ridiculous as you mention, common sense would prevail. However, as per some of our previous discussions, there are probably going to be (maybe even literally, over time) 'millions' of cases in which much more 'subtle' miscoding to C2 will occur (usually in cases when a C3, not requiring any remedial action, would probably be appropriate) - and we cannot reasonably expect most landlords to even recognise when that has happened.

For example, it seems that plastic CUs (particularly if 'under stairs') are being given C2s in some cases, whereas I think that many would feel that was not appropriate.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

In the gas industry, landlords safety checks (12 monthly or sooner) have been carried out for a long number of years and I can't recall when last I saw a query over one. Unless of course there were some to begin with which were clarified as time moved on.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think that is a lot easier to do with few things that are down to the inspector's knowledge of variable factors. Either the pressure is correct or not, the gas and flue tests reveal leaks or not etc.

One such example in the gas safety check is the reference to the Main Equipotential Bonding which (correct me if I am wrong) only requires a tick for present or not - no check for if connected correctly nor allowance for when it is not actually required.
Does this result in an electrician being called to verify this?

 

[denso13]

Does this result in an electrician being called to verify this?

This is the guidance

3.3.2 Equipotential Bonding Electrical Safety Issue Regulation 18(2) of GSIUR places a duty on gas engineers to notify the responsible person of the requirement for equipotential bonding to be connected to gas installations in domestic premises.

The purpose of equipotential bonding is to ensure the gas installation remains safe under electrical fault conditions. Where a gas engineer cannot confirm that an equipotential bond is connected to the installation pipework, or it is adequate (e.g. secure), it shall be brought to the attention of the responsible person.

The bonding should preferably be connected:

• within 600 mm of the outlet of the gas meter, before any branch, or
• where the meter is fitted outside the building, as near to the point of each entry of the pipework into the building.

In each instance the bonding shall be provided before any branch. Where it is not possible to confirm that adequate bonding arrangements exist, HSE guidance is that the responsible person be notified in writing of the requirement for equipotential bonding. This can be achieved by leaving a bonding notice as described in BS 6891, which advises that the bonding be checked/carried out by a competent electrical contractor.

 

[denso13]

Either the pressure is correct or not

That's like saying either there is an earth (apologies, electricity isn't my first language) or there isn't. It's how you deal with it after that.

If the pressure isn't correct what do you do? "Code it" At Risk, Immediately Dangerous or Not to Current Standards. There is quite a bit of guidance relating to this for gas work at least.

 

[JohnW2]

This is the guidance ....

THe latter parts of that are essentially (perhaps literall - I haven't checked) a copy/paste from BS7671. However, ...

... The purpose of equipotential bonding is to ensure the gas installation remains safe under electrical fault conditions....

... is not really a very correct (or, at least, very clear) statement of the purpose of main protective equipotential bonding. The purpose of such bonding (when required, electrically) is to prevent the gas pipework introducing a hazard into the premises, by introducing true earth potential (which, under some circumstances, can differ appreciably from the potential of the installation's CPCs) into the premises.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

In the gas industry, landlords safety checks (12 monthly or sooner) have been carried out for a long number of years and I can't recall when last I saw a query over one. Unless of course there were some to begin with which were clarified as time moved on.

Are there many situations in the gas industry in which there will be appreciable differences of opinion between different people as to what does, and what does not, "require urgent remedial action" (i.e. equivalent to the difference between C2 and C3 on an EICR)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

Are there many situations in the gas industry in which there will be appreciable differences of opinion between different people as to what does, and what does not, "require urgent remedial action" (i.e. equivalent to the difference between C2 and C3 on an EICR)?

No doubt there will be some differences but I'm not sure about appreciable.

This document explains the unsafe procedure and about half way through, page 17, gives a lot of specific examples https://www.igem.org.uk/_resources/assets/attachment/full/0/7569.pdf

The document is easily found on a search and freely downloadable, I'm not sharing anything I shouldn't!

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's like saying either there is an earth (apologies, electricity isn't my first language) or there isn't. It's how you deal with it after that.

Ok.

If the pressure isn't correct what do you do? "Code it" At Risk, Immediately Dangerous or Not to Current Standards. There is quite a bit of guidance relating to this for gas work at least.

I'm sorry for my ignorance on the subject, I did mean pressure at the appliance; I thought you would adjust it so that it was correct.