PIR

[stedon1]

Hi, could anyone please give me their opinion on these PIR issues and what code if any they would issue. Many thanks.

1 Blanks missing from spare ways in consumer unit
2 Poor neutral connection at immersion heater stat
3 Flex not secured in cord grip at immersion heater
4 Exposed live connections in roof space above down lights
5 Down lights covered by thermal insulation
6 Inadequate labeling and warning notices at consumer unit
7 No equipotential bonding at hot water tank
8 No earth to oil line
9 No bonding at central heating boiler
10 Poor ZS and IR at upstairs lighting circuit
11 Mains voltage down lights in bathroom
12 No RCD protection on any circuit

 

[sparkticus]

Hi, could anyone please give me their opinion on these PIR issues and what code if any they would issue. Many thanks

1 Blanks missing from spare ways in consumer unit Code 1 (if fingers can reach live parts)
2 Poor neutral connection at immersion heater stat Code1 (risk of fire)
3 Flex not secured in cord grip at immersion heater Code2
4 Exposed live connections in roof space above down lights Code1
5 Down lights covered by thermal insulation Code1 (immediate fire risk)
6 Inadequate labeling and warning notices at consumer unit (what is missing?)
7 No equipotential bonding at hot water tank (is it required?)
8 No earth to oil line Code 1
9 No bonding at central heating boiler (is it required)
10 Poor ZS and IR at upstairs lighting circuit (needs further investigation)
11 Mains voltage down lights in bathroom (in what zone?)
12 No RCD protection on any circuit Is it required?


Installation = UNSATISFACTORY

 

[Adam_151]

1 Blanks missing from spare ways in consumer unit

Code 1

2 Poor neutral connection at immersion heater stat

Whats poor about it? - Code 1 if its burning out

3 Flex not secured in cord grip at immersion heater

Is it likely to get pulled out and damaged - Code 2 if so

4 Exposed live connections in roof space above down lights

Connector blocks outside of enclosure? - code 2

5 Down lights covered by thermal insulation

Code 2

6 Inadequate labeling and warning notices at consumer unit

Code 4

7 No equipotential bonding at hot water tank

No code, not required, supplimentry bonding may be required in the bathroom though which should be checked

8 No earth to oil line

No bonding you mean? - code 2 (assuming its an extranous conductive part, and its likely to be in most domestics)

9 No bonding at central heating boiler

See no. 7

10 Poor ZS and IR at upstairs lighting circuit

Why poor?, If the ZS is higher than max permitted - code 2 or its significantly higher than you expect given the length of circuit (i.e. you suspect loose connection) then code 3. If IR is less then 1 meg then code 2, if its above 1 meg but still not a very good value then you might give code 3

11 Mains voltage down lights in bathroom

Are they suitable for the zone/location in which they are installed?, if yes then no code, if not then code 1/2/4 depending on the level of risk posed by the incorrectly installed fitting

12 No RCD protection on any circuit

Assuming domestic - code 2 for any sockets reasonably expected to supply outdoor equipment, code 4 for other sockets, concealed cabling, bathroom lights, showers (unless manufacturer guidence requires it). No code in case of some circuits - eg, surface clipped and supplying fixed equipment.

 

[stedon1]

The zs at the upstairs lighting circuit is 1.90. On the same circuit the live earth ir is 13.2 megaohms. The circuit is protected by BS1361 fuse 5a. There are no warning notices or labeling at all on the consumer unit not even circuit identification. There is no supplementary bonding on the bathroom radiator however it is chrome with chrome pipes feeding it, is it possible to fit the clamps in the roofspace above it as that is where the pipes head and fit a notice somewhere for anyone coming behind me, so to speak.

 

[RF Lighting]

I've not read the other replies, so I wouldn't be influenced by them.

1 Blanks missing from spare ways in consumer unit

Code 2

2 Poor neutral connection at immersion heater stat

Code 2

3 Flex not secured in cord grip at immersion heater

Code 2

4 Exposed live connections in roof space above down lights

I presume you mean something like strip connectors not in an enclosure?
If so, code 2

5 Down lights covered by thermal insulation

No code.
Recommendation only.

6 Inadequate labeling and warning notices at consumer unit

Code 4

7 No equipotential bonding at hot water tank

It is not a fault.

8 No earth to oil line

Is it from an external oil tank? If it's extraneous then code 1

9 No bonding at central heating boiler

It is not a fault

10 Poor ZS and IR at upstairs lighting circuit

Depending on the readings, probably code 2

11 Mains voltage down lights in bathroom

Depends on where they are but probably nothing wrong with that if they're on the ceiling.

12 No RCD protection on any circuit

Code 2 or more likely code 4 depending on what the circuit is.

 

[RF Lighting]

The zs at the upstairs lighting circuit is 1.90. On the same circuit the live earth ir is 13.2 megaohms. The circuit is protected by BS1361 fuse 5a. There are no warning notices or labeling at all on the consumer unit not even circuit identification. There is no supplementary bonding on the bathroom radiator however it is chrome with chrome pipes feeding it, is it possible to fit the clamps in the roofspace above it as that is where the pipes head and fit a notice somewhere for anyone coming behind me, so to speak.

Those readings are all within acceptable values.

The IR is a bit low, and might warrant a bit more investigation, but it certainly doesn't mean the installation is not safe.

The bonding needs to be with in the bathroom, or near to where the pipes enter the bathroom. If you are going to correct the main protective bonding to the oil line, and all circuits within the barthroom are RCD protected then you will probably be OK to omit local supplementary bonding.

 

[stedon1]

Downlights covered by thermal insulation. Three informed sparks, three totally different codes. Personally I would use code 1. This is why I dont like doing PIRs very often. I would have thought no warning labels or stickers whatsoever would be a 2? Many thanks for all your replies.

 

[JohnW2]

Downlights covered by thermal insulation. Three informed sparks, three totally different codes.

Quite so. Without any criticism at all of any of the three of them, this is very telling - and confirms that PIRs are not quite the Black & White which most members of the public probably believe, and probably even expect.

In the context of this thread, the more worrying thing is, I suppose, that these three different people would presumably insist on different things being done (at a price) before they would be willing to replace the CU. For Joe Public this is a problem - one can advise him/her to get three quotes (for nothing) but it would be unreasonable to suggest that (s)he should pay for three PIRs!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkticus]

The PIR has always offered subjectivity despite GN3. In my view anything that presents a risk of electric shock (direct or otherwise) or presents a risk of fire must be a code 1 and acted on immediately.

The new EICR appears to go some way to provide more objectivity. But is defeated by the codes (proposed at the moment I believe) which, in my opinion, are just as subjective. There will be plenty of "blur" between C1 and C2 I think.

C1 DANGER PRESENT / RISK OF INJURY (immediate action required)
C2 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS (urgent remedial action required)
C3 IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED (improvement recommended)

 

[Adam_151]

Downlights covered by thermal insulation. Three informed sparks, three totally different codes. Personally I would use code 1.

It's upto you to try and quantify the potential risk, given that this is heat emitting equipment and the manufacturers instructions on clearances have been ignored, then its a defect from from BS7671 so if you find it I cant see how you can not give it a recommendation code (any input rob), so if we are going to code it, we should first consider what the result might be.

A)We might speculate that the poor installation will result in no ill effects, we might give this a code 4

B) We might speculate that the excess heat would result in equipment damage, deformation and reduced lifespan to the fitting - we might give this a code 2

C) We might speculate that the situation could result in a fire - we would have to code this as a 1.

My personal take... yours might vary is that given that both plasterboard and fibreglass/rockwool are non combustable that C is quite unlikely, I would say that A is unlikely too, these things are tested to find out what the minimum clearance needs to be and if A was true then they'd say you could cover them!. Which leaves option B. Note that if other insulation mediums are in use (mushed paper pulp, etc) then C might become a risk

This is why I dont like doing PIRs very often.

Don't worry, no one ever totally agrees on coding issues, or what degree of sampling is acceptable, how long you should look for unmarked circuits, how relevant R1+R2 is to a PIR situation.

I would have thought no warning labels or stickers whatsoever would be a 2? Many thanks for all your replies.

I think that sometimes in commericial/industrial you can justify that lack of suitable labeling presents a safety issue and requires improvement... turning off circuits to locate the correct one could lead to safety services being turned off etc, or maintenance having to be done live. But in domestic I think you are stretching it a bit to give it anything other than code 4

 

[sparkticus]

these three different people would presumably insist on different things being done (at a price) before they would be willing to replace the CU. For Joe Public this is a problem - one can advise him/her to get three quotes (for nothing) but it would be unreasonable to suggest that (s)he should pay for three PIRs!

That's a valid perspective but in reality we are only (in this thread) coding on basic information. With a comprehensive investigation, actually seeing the details I would be willing to bet that all three opinions would tend to coalesce. It is important to keep in mind that PIRs should be completed by experienced people only who are capable of interpreting risk carefully and with sound reasoning. Also, domestic PIRs are different animals from commercial PIRs and industrial very different again.

 

[Adam_151]

Quite so. Without any criticism at all of any of the three of them, this is very telling - and confirms that PIRs are not quite the Black & White which most members of the public probably believe, and probably even expect.

Its worth remembering that the observations are not the most important bit of the PIR, the summary is, which goes hand in hand with the electrician having the rough outline of what he is going to write for it within an hour of arriving at the site (15 minutes to wait to see the maintance manager, 30 minute walk with him through the factory, 15 minutes in the switchroom)... the rest of it is just gathering evidence to confirm what you already know

I don't think the PIR as we know it will around in 25 years time, I reckon the change of name to electrical installation condition report is to facilitate what is still to come. I expect there will come to be much more of a visual element to it, and less gathering sheets of results. Specifiers and architects are already starting to realise that a PIR does not automatically suit all purposes and have started to request on site visual inspections combined with a number of cursory tests in each area to enable the preparing of an overview report, which actually is simular in format to the report that the structural folk prepare

 

[sparkticus]

PIRs should be completed by experienced people only who are capable of interpreting risk carefully and with sound reasoning.

I feel that I should add that while my statement above is an ideal, in reality the domestic world is plagued by incredibly poor PIRs performed by people who have little experience, poor knowledge of BS7671 and an under developed ability to differentiate risk factors. Many of them performing a PIR in an hour for about £50 but there I go again on my high horse

 

[stedon1]

There is no doubt a PIR is for an experienced, competent spark only. The need to differentiate the severity of faults is key. But there is no getting away from the fact that four electricians can give four different codes for a basic and common fault. What can you do. I hear Tescos are looking for staff

 

[sparkticus]

there is no getting away from the fact that four electricians can give four different codes for a basic and common fault

Do you mean the insulation over the downlight? If the downlight contains a 50 watt halogen that is surely a code 1 right? but what if it is an LED or a CFL? Now is the the wiring covered in insulation too? It is surely all about the details which we currently do not have.

Don't forget that many of the other faults will depend upon risk factors too. The loose neutral to the immersion stat for example. If the immersion was mounted up high on top of the tank with no/little risk of influence on anything else than the worst that might happen is possibly an open circuit leading to an inop immersion heater. If it were down low then towels might be stacked up against it with significant risk of fire. I am not surprised at all by the range of codes/per issue in this thread. What would surprise me is if the codes differed very much if we could all actually see the details.

By the way, what are these Tesco jobs? Risk Assessors I assume