EICR situation

[17thman]

I have conducted a report and coded the lack of RCD protection for any socket likely to supply equipment outdoors as code 2.

It is a long victorian house. I have quoted for the installation (well replacement) of the socket outlet in the conservatory with an RCD socket outlet and the same for the front of the house (the hallway one).There are other matter, but irrelavent for the question.

The owner has as said that he only wants one replacing as he can run an extension lead. I am not happy to do this as it is likely that this won't happen on occassions. Should i insist, because it could come back to bite me or just change one of them and put a covering letter with my final invoice if i get the work?

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

You have options:
*Do as client has requested, you have improved the situation and make remarks on documents (to cover ones bum hole)
*Insist the work is carried out
*Walk away

 

[dhutch]

You have options:
*Do as client has requested, you have improved the situation and make remarks on documents (to cover ones bum hole)
*Insist the work is carried out
*Walk away

Sounds about right, how much are they anyway, £20, tell him to stop being tight!

 

[RF Lighting]

I wouldn't issue a satisfactory EICR if he only has one socket replaced.

Just because he says he won't use the none RCD protected socket for outdoor use it doesn't make the installation compliant.

Obviously it's up to the customer to decide wether he wants the work doing or not, but I'm guessing if he's requesting an EICR in the first place then he probably requires a satisfactory condition at the end of it.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

The 'likely to supply outdoor equipment' phrasing went out with the 16th edition.
Under current regs, rcds are required for all general purpose sockets rated less than 20A.

So, unless you apply rcd's to ALL sockets, then your eicr will still turn out unsatisfactory anyway.

Cant you persuade the customer to have an rcd fitted at the origin of the circuit to protect all sockets?
I doubt the materials will come out at more than 2 rcd sockets anyway.
Seems the simplest way, but if the customer is really that tight and wont play ball, i'd definately get something in writing to cover your ass

 

[RF Lighting]

I would class sockets not likely to supply equipment out doors as code 3, and sockets likely to supply equipment outdoors as code 2.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Hi RF.
If its your signature going on the report, then thats your prerogative.
Personally i give all non-rcd g/p sockets a code2 (non rcd'd concealed cables code3)
Which (from memory) is backed up by the esc's guide on eicrs.
I know its only a guide and doesn't have to be adhered to, but it works for me

 

[sparkybird]

Regs aren't retrospective, so I'm with RF - code 3 for non RCD sockets as 'doesn't comply with current regs' and code 2 for the 2 sockets that 'could supply equipment outside the equipotential zone'

If you only change 1 of them you can't then issue Satisfactory EICR as you'll still have a code 2

Hope this makes sense

SB

 

[gram1980]

How far do we go with the regs aren't retrospective, I tested a lead cable the other day which showed no signs of degradation @1000v, if that was still in service supplying socket outlets I doubt it would be rcd protected so would that be a code 3 if it wasn't reasonably expected to supply equipment outside the equipotential zone. When I'm conducting a periodic im relating it to the current regs [/quote]

 

[JohnW2]

How far do we go with the regs aren't retrospective, I tested a lead cable the other day which showed no signs of degradation @1000v, if that was still in service supplying socket outlets I doubt it would be rcd protected so would that be a code 3 if it wasn't reasonably expected to supply equipment outside the equipotential zone. When I'm conducting a periodic im relating it to the current regs

In general, they obviously cannot be retrospective, or else virtually every PIR/EICR undertaken soon after issue of a new edition/amendment of the regs would produce an 'Unsatisfactory' result, and many installations would still be 'Unsatisfactory' for years thereafter, even those they were regarded as acceptable a few days earlier. In terms of coding non-compliance in an EICR, there is some guidance out there, but I think it largely comes down to personal judgement and common sense. Although I know others disagree, I would personally think that sparkybird's approach is very sensible.

Since we're talking RCDs, would you give a Code 2 to an installation all covered by a single RCD, or to non-RCD protected cables buried <50mm deep?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I agree with sparkybird and John.

Following the 'logic' used for giving a code 2 to the sockets in question (surely it applies to all of them) because of no RCD protection, does that not mean the whole installation should be given a code 2?

All concealed cables will be chased at <50mm. and not RCD protected.
The bathroom circuits will not be RCD protected etc.

Thus, the homeowner will be 'forced' to have the CU replaced.


If the installation was compliant when it was fitted then it is still considered satisfactory - with the code 3 recommendations.
It is not the installation that is 'potentially dangerous'.
(Other than, as previously noted, electricity is potentially dangerous.)

I know the BGB states "The safety of those using the installation may be at risk" for code 2 but that is not so because of faults in the installation.
A plug-in RCD socket can be used for outside tools should the homeowner choose.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

i thought that the old code 4 was done away with for a particular reason.
That being that it used to raise arguments about the requirement for knowledge of changes to the regs throughout history and how far one is expected to go back in time?

I seem to recall going a bit cross eyed reading very long and intricate arguments to that effect on the IET forum.

You are only assessing how the installation complies with current regs.

Whether it used to comply but now does not is seemingly irrelevant.

i would say that the code for non-rcd'd socket is at the discretion of the person making the report. If its not clear cut, i would prefer to err on the side of safety, so that usually results in a code2 from me.


BTW, i think some folk think this is a very bad and costly issue when often it is not. In the case of a house with just a single socket circuit (ring or radial, not important) putting the feed through a small secondary RCD board is not really a bank breaker IMHO.

 

[JohnW2]

You are only assessing how the installation complies with current regs. Whether it used to comply but now does not is seemingly irrelevant.

If the system is to be practical/workable, I don't think it's really that simple. If any/every failure to comply with current regulations resulted in an 'Unsatisfactory' report result, a very high proportion (nearly all in some cases) of inspections would yield 'Unsatisfactory' results in the months and years following the introduction of each new edition or amendment of the regs. That would essentially render the inspections useless - and, by making it imposible for many people to 'see the wood for the trees' (i.e. to identify which aspects of non-compliance were genuine safety issues) would probably be detrimental to safety. It would also mean that those who, for whatever reason, wanted/needed to obtain a 'Satisfactory' EICR would be obliged to upgrade their installation (in some cases requiring major work) every time the regs were revised/updated.

I personally think that the 'common sense' approach is probably the only way to have a workable and useful system - but others will undoubtedly disagree!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Hi John,

That maybe the case, and yes, that would mean that there would probably be a lot more 'unsatisfactory' reports the day after a regs change.
Harsh to some people but i guess thats just the way it is.

Although, having said that, as i'm sure you know, if there were only code 3 on the report then the overall report would be satisfactory. (as an example, rcd protection for concealed cables, only a code3, so nothing to be concerned about).

Re: the common sense approach.

If it were down to the likes of you or I, I'm sure we would apply common sense when devising a protocol for reporting. However, we were not involved and common sense may be due to arrive on a later bus, but i won't be holding my breath

 

[JohnW2]

Hi John, That maybe the case, and yes, that would mean that there would probably be a lot more 'unsatisfactory' reports the day after a regs change. Harsh to some people but i guess thats just the way it is.

Not just harsh, but I would suggest also unrealistic/unacceptable. Those people needing to have a 'satisfactory' EICR would be forced to have (perhaps major) work undertaken everytime the whim of the IET etc. caused them to 'update' the regs. Many pre-existing things (e.g. cars) continue to be regarded as acceptable even if they would not be compliant with current-day regulations for new products.

Although, having said that, as i'm sure you know, if there were only code 3 on the report then the overall report would be satisfactory. (as an example, rcd protection for concealed cables, only a code3, so nothing to be concerned about).

Indeed, but I thought that's what this discussion is about. As you say, a Code 3 is really a different kettle of fish - it is essentially just 'advisory' (indicating non-compliance with current regulations) and does not result in an 'Unsatisfactory' result. That's surely why there is this discussion about people who would give a Code 2 to things which (perhaps by applying 'common sense') others would classify as Code 3?

Re: the common sense approach. .... If it were down to the likes of you or I, I'm sure we would apply common sense when devising a protocol for reporting. However, we were not involved and common sense may be due to arrive on a later bus, but i won't be holding my breath

As above, isn't the decision of an electrician as to whether to give a Code 2 or Code 3 something which can (and hopefully often is) based on the application of a degree of common sense?

Kind Regards, John