Fuse board - EICR assessment

[pete01]

Only C3 can be used in this situation

Exactly, the amount of people who say plastic consumer unit C2 its ridiculous.

I've spoke about this with electricians in wholesalers, 9 out of 10 say if its plastic we change it.

 

[JohnW2]

Only C3 can be used in this situation

In terms of what little of the installation we've seen (and none of which we have tested) you are very probably right.

However, as I always remind people, one of the most unsatisfactory things about EICRs is that one is at the mercy of the 'judgement' of the inspector (be it a sensible judgement or not) - so if an inspector feels (rightly or wrongly) that anything is "potentially dangerous and requires urgent remedial action", then they can, and might, code it as C2.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Electricity is potentially dangerous.

 

[EFLImpudence]

"potentially dangerous and requires urgent remedial action", then they can, and might, code it as C2.

Not if it was satisfactory yesterday.

 

[JohnW2]

Electricity is potentially dangerous.

Indeed it is - which makes that part of the 'definition' of C2 stupid.

 

[JohnW2]

Not if it was satisfactory yesterday.

You're trying to talk common sense, but my point is that there is nothing stopping the inspector thinking otherwise.

Having said that, I suppose the inspector might feel/believe that it was "potentially dangerous and requiring urgent remedial action" yesterday, as well - but isn't asked to report that in an EICR.

 

[Murdochcat]

In terms of what little of the installation we've seen (and none of which we have tested) you are very probably right

No probably about it.

You cannot give a C2 for a plastic CU unless it is damaged

I know some members on here will disagree BUT that’s the guidance sensible people apply

Giving a C2 for a perfectly good CU is not justified

 

[EFLImpudence]

You're trying to talk common sense, but my point is that there is nothing stopping the inspector thinking otherwise.

Of course there is nothing stopping the inspector being wrong.

Having said that, I suppose the inspector might feel/believe that it was "potentially dangerous and requiring urgent remedial action" yesterday,

It cannot be if it has come about merely because of a rule change.

 

[ericmark]

Yes potentially dangerous has always been stupid, 230 volts AC has always been potentially dangerous, but I would say, BS 7671:2008 is the edition I would use to work out what is potentially dangerous, as the use of RCD protection and the bonding requirement changed with that edition, in respect of the bathroom, I don't feel one can rely on a plumber to always replace the bonding, as often today not required, we have to consider what will happen if a length of copper pipe is replaced with plastic, so I want all items in the bathroom protected with the RCD, as one can't rely on items remaining bonded.

But this is a personal opinion, as long as the bonding in the bathroom is in place, then one can argue either way.

Escape routes are also a problem, an escape route should not contain anything which can burn, so a hallway which is carpeted is not an escape route. Again down to personal opinion, clearly escape routes in the past have been carpeted, but as far as I am concerned, I am not a safety officer or a firefighter, and so not qualified to designate any route as an escape route. Careful not to call them firemen, we have loads of them at work, but their job is to keep the fire going so they have a good head of steam.

 

[Deleted member 142255]

If all inspectors were trained to C&G2391 and kept their qualification up to date there would be a lot less confusion.

 

[Deleted member 142255]

Yes potentially dangerous has always been stupid, 230 volts AC has always been potentially dangerous, but I would say, BS 7671:2008 is the edition I would use to work out what is potentially dangerous, as the use of RCD protection and the bonding requirement changed with that edition, in respect of the bathroom, I don't feel one can rely on a plumber to always replace the bonding, as often today not required, we have to consider what will happen if a length of copper pipe is replaced with plastic, so I want all items in the bathroom protected with the RCD, as one can't rely on items remaining bonded.

But this is a personal opinion, as long as the bonding in the bathroom is in place, then one can argue either way.

Escape routes are also a problem, an escape route should not contain anything which can burn, so a hallway which is carpeted is not an escape route. Again down to personal opinion, clearly escape routes in the past have been carpeted, but as far as I am concerned, I am not a safety officer or a firefighter, and so not qualified to designate any route as an escape route. Careful not to call them firemen, we have loads of them at work, but their job is to keep the fire going so they have a good head of steam.

Which would render your assessment useless really. You should be assessing against the current version of the regs, not one 10+ years old, so you should hold both up to date 2391 and 18th edition qualifications.

 

[JohnW2]

No probably about it. You cannot give a C2 for a plastic CU unless it is damaged

I agree there's no "probably" about it IF the only issue is that it is plastic. However, all we know is what the outside of the CU looks like - we have no idea about anything else to do with the installation (including what is going on within the CU) ... hence my "very probably right".

I know some members on here will disagree BUT that’s the guidance sensible people apply. Giving a C2 for a perfectly good CU is not justified

I totally agree. I have umpteen plastic CUs in my house and will do all I can to keep it that way for as long as possible, not the least because I regard metal ones as 'potentially dangerous'!

 

[Deleted member 142255]

I totally agree. I have umpteen plastic CUs in my house and will do all I can to keep it that way for as long as possible, not the least because I regard metal ones as 'potentially dangerous'!

Properly installed and maintained metal ones are fine. Factories, shops, office block etc, etc are full of them.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course there is nothing stopping the inspector being wrong.

Exactly - that's the present situation, but not a very satisfactory one. You know my opinion - Just as with MOTs, wherever possible there should be explicit rules about coding, with as little as possible reliance on judgement/discretion of the inspector. Also, as you know, I feel that there should be a (well-'policed') requirement for people to be 'licensed' in some way to undertake EICRs, with that licence/whatever being revoked if their performance proved unsatisfactory.

It cannot be if it has come about merely because of a rule change.

Not necessarily. The inspector could be a person who has always felt that plastic CUs were dangerous. That's the problem - at prtesent they are a law unto themselves, much worse since the 'rented property' legislation has given teeth to EICRs

 

[JohnW2]

If all inspectors were trained to C&G2391 and kept their qualification up to date there would be a lot less confusion.

I don't think that would be a guaranteed solution - we could well find some C&G 2391 'trainers' teaching that plastic CUs should be given C2s!

Since, having not been around this forum for long, you probably are unfamiliar with my personal views about what should be done about EICRs,, so see the very brief summary I've just posted in response to EFLI