EICR Questions

[JohnW2]

I didn't used to do EICRs but on installation certificates I used to put the RCD(s) on a separate line above the circuits they covered and fill out accordingly - BS 61008, conductor sizes etc. and of course the test results.

Fair enough - that sounds like reasonable use of what seems like an imperfect form!

I would imagine that you would probably agree that it's pretty clear from the Schedule (and the electrician's comment that "some" of the circuits are not RCD protected) that the three circuits 'above' (in the Schedule) "RCD" are not RCD protected, whilst the three circuits 'below' "RCD" (in the Schedule) are RCD protected (hence only those three have an IN recorded)?

However, as I said, although there is a column for recording "RCD operation time" for each of the three RCD-protected circuits, the results are recorded as "N/A", which suggests that RCD tests may not have been done (event though the test device serial number is given for RCD tests).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Poor kebab has some problems.

It seems that he does and, unfortunately, he appears to escape from GD now and again these days.

Kind Regards, John

 

[donrkebab]

Poor kebab has some problems.

Did you know he said I would do a better job of governing this country than Theresa May, Buffoon Johnson, or Jacob Rice-Pud?

If I valued his opinion at all, I would have been quite flattered.

Please show everybody where I said, I've never had you down as a liar, but I live and learn.

 

[JohnW2]

... look at column 9 and the penultimate column.

As I've said, column 9 relates to the Overcurrent Protective Device of the circuit, which I would hope you can understand is the MCB, nothing to do with RCDs.

As for the penultimate column, I have already commented on the fact he he either didn't undertake or didn't record the results of RCD tests on the three circuits that clearly were RCD-protected.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would imagine that you would probably agree that it's pretty clear from the Schedule (and the electrician's comment that "some" of the circuits are not RCD protected) that the three circuits 'above' (in the Schedule) "RCD" are not RCD protected, whilst the three circuits 'below' "RCD" (in the Schedule) are RCD protected (hence only those three have an IN recorded)?

I think it impossible to tell which is the mistake; the entry of IΔn or the omission of the test results.

There is nothing at all in the test button column.

 

[JohnW2]

I think it impossible to tell which is the mistake; the entry of IΔn or the omission of the test results.

I suppose that, strictly speaking, it's impossible to be certain - but, given ...

1...The electrician said that some circuits were not RCD-protected, AND
2..."RCD" appears in column 1 between the first three and second three circuits, AND
3... IΔn figures have been recorded for the second three, but not the first three, circuits

... it seems to me to be almost certain that those second three circuits are RCD-protected - but that no tests were undertaken (or tests were undertaken but not recorded) for that RCD.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

Please show everybody where I said

have you forgotten already?

 

[donrkebab]

have you forgotten already?

Yes, I have show your proof>

 

[JohnD]

I would rather see anyone running this country than any of the scum mps that we have, and just to be clear I mean every single one of them.

There's no denying that "anyone" includes me

Nor that "any...MPs" includes May, Johnson and Smog.

 

[donrkebab]

There's no denying that "anyone" includes me

Nor that "any...MPs" includes May, Johnson and Smog.

You're so smart, take a lolly out of the jar

 

[EFLImpudence]

1...The electrician said that some circuits were not RCD-protected, AND
2..."RCD" appears in column 1 between the first three and second three circuits, AND

Ah, missed both of that.

He's put SPAR after all the circuits so at least we know where he does his shopping.

 

[ericmark]

Lack of RCD protection should not be shown as C1
As to second sheet if there is no RCD then quite simple it should not have RCD written down.
As to tripping times and currents I think I would also enter not applicable (NA) if the device did not exist.
We have some years where there were changes, 2001, 2008, 2018 I think, the report says 9 years ago the new consumer unit was fitted, so it was fitted after 2008 so has never complied with a current BS7671.

However the comments made, one has to question does he know what he is doing? Reminds me of straight crank shafts, etc.

 

[JohnW2]

Ah, missed both of that.

Fair enough.

It does seem a bit odd/surprising that as recently as 9 years ago, anyone would have installed a single-RCD 'split load' CU - but given that, for whatever reason, they apparently did, I suppose its not unreasonable (within that context) that they seemingly chose the two lighting circuits and the cooker circuit as the ones not to be RCD-protected.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

...the report says 9 years ago the new consumer unit was fitted, so it was fitted after 2008 so has never complied with a current BS7671.

In what way do you think it was non-compliant with BS7671 when installed? 9 years ago, there were no requirements for either lighting or cooker circuits to be RCD protected - and the fact that neither lighting circuit was RCD protected could probably be taken to indicate that there would not be any more 'inconvenience' (and certainly no more danger) as a result of a fault on one circuit than would be the case with a modern 2-RCD set up.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

In what way do you think it was non-compliant with BS7671 when installed? 9 years ago, there were no requirements for either lighting or cooker circuits to be RCD protected - and the fact that neither lighting circuit was RCD protected could probably be taken to indicate that there would not be any more 'inconvenience' (and certainly no more danger) as a result of a fault on one circuit than would be the case with a modern 2-RCD set up.

Kind Regards, John

There would be RCD protection on all household sockets, the way the form is filled in one can't tell if sockets are or are not protected, it states RCD which one would think means all below that line RCD protected but then fails to give tripping current or time.

However most of us follow the Electrical safety councils best practice recommended codes, and there would be no codes following that, although one could recommend upgrades.

C3 – Improvement recommended
Absence of RCD protection for a socket-outlet that is unlikely to supply portable or mobile equipment for use outdoors, does not serve a location containing a bath or shower, and the use of which is otherwise not considered by the inspector to result in potential danger.(Note: Code C2 would apply if the circuit supplied a socket-outlet in a location containing a bath or shower in accordance with Regulation 701.512.3)

Above is now out of date, however clearly normally a C3 as to socket in location with bath or shower on old regulations it would depend if it's a bedroom or not, and distance between socket and shower.