Poll: EICR Coding of a 'plastic' CU in domestic installation

[EFLImpudence]

I believed you after you confirmed it.

I still maintain that a designated "escape route" when mentioned in BS7671 (path to follow for access to a safe area in the event of an emergency), with its associated requirements, does not apply to (ordinary) houses because everywhere could be a means of escape.

That does not mean common sense should not be employed in fixing cables etc.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, surely the (London) Fire Brigade should demand that stairs (and other parts) be constructed of non-combustible material.

Per Section 5 of Approved Doc B, "elements of structure" (including "floor structures") have to have a specified minimum degree of 'fire resistance' (much more sensible, specific and well-defined than 'non-combustible'). I can't find any specific indication that this includes staircases, but one would imagine that it probably does.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I still maintain that a designated "escape route" when mentioned in BS7671 (path to follow for access to a safe area in the event of an emergency), with its associated requirements, does not apply to (ordinary) houses because everywhere could be a means of escape.

We seem to be down to arguing about words, in your quest to find an 'official' definition/meaning of "escape route". It goes without saying that, in any building (not just 'ordinary houses') everywhere could, in appropriate circumstances, be 'a means of escape'. In fact, App Doc B does have an ('official' enough for you?) definition, which says precisely that ...

Escape route The route along which people can escape from any point in a building to a final exit.

... which is not that much different from the BS7671 ('official'??) definition ...

Escape route. Path to follow for access to a safe area in the event of an emergency.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, but "official" escape routes in flats/large buildings have to be designated, marked and supplied with emergency lighting.

Such designations and markings would be pointless in (ordinary) houses.

All I am saying is that regulations relating to 'escape routes' do not apply to (ordinary) houses, but because the passage and front door (or the passage and back door or the upstairs window) in houses might be an escape route, people will think and say that such regulation do apply.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but "official" escape routes in flats/large buildings have to be designated, marked and supplied with emergency lighting.

Well, there are some 'escape routes' in flats and large buildings which have to be "designated, marked and supplied with emergency lighting", but that clearly can't apply to all 'escape routes' (as defined in App Doc B) in such buildings, since their definition applies to routes which commence 'at any point' in the building!

Such designations and markings would be pointless in (ordinary) houses.

They would.

All I am saying is that regulations relating to 'escape routes' do not apply to (ordinary) houses, but because the passage and front door (or the passage and back door or the upstairs window) in houses might be an escape route, people will think and say that such regulation do apply.

I think you are trying to distinguish between "escape routes which have to be designated, marked and supplied with emergency lighting" and those escape routes which don't have that requirement (e.g. those in 'ordinary houses') - but we're not seeing any definitions which make that distinction

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I see that a second person (in addition to {I presume} Flameport) has voted "None of the above". I wonder if that person would like to 'show themselves' and indicate which 'other' answer they would give?

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

I assume on this platform you can make votes public. Select that option next time !

 

[Adam_151]

John, Is "C2 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise none" Meant to read as " C3 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise none"?

C2 or nothing seems an odd combination....

 

[JohnW2]

John, Is "C2 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise none" Meant to read as " C3 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise none"? ... C2 or nothing seems an odd combination....

It does, but it's what I intended.

The primary option was "C2 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise C3" - which, as you imply, seems logical. However, I added the second one (still "C2") ending "... otherwise none" 'just in case' someone thought like that - and I suppose that the proof of the pudding (my 'just in case') is that someone has actually voted for that one!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I assume on this platform you can make votes public. Select that option next time !

One can, and I intended to, but forgot to tick that box (the default is for votes not to be public). Unfortunately, that's one of the few things about a poll that one can't 'edit' after it has been posted. Next time I'll try to be more careful!

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

The first time I remember seeing this advice was in ESC Best Practice Guide 4 Issue 4 (carried into Issue 5).
The guidance was/is to give a C3 where the CU is combustible and under stairs or blocking a hallway. By omission, no code is recommended if the CU is not in such location. This only applies when the CU has no faults which earn a C1 or C2.

I am with the NIC, but have a copy of Napit Codebreakers. This does not replace the need to be qualified and experienced, just gives a quick reference guide.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The first time I remember seeing this advice was in ESC Best Practice Guide 4 Issue 4 (carried into Issue 5).

Ok. A book written by someone just like you with whom you might disagree, therefore it is pointless.

The guidance was/is to give a C3 where the CU is combustible and under stairs or blocking a hallway.

Why? Which regulation does it contravene?

By omission, no code is recommended if the CU is not in such location.

Do we now have to consider the location of any other appliance?

I am with the NIC, but have a copy of Napit Codebreakers. This does not replace the need to be qualified and experienced, just gives a quick reference guide.

Why does anyone need a 'quick reference guide' when carrying out an EICR?

 

[ericmark]

Big question as electricians are we qualified to decide on fire precursors? As a 40 year old in old house all three bedrooms had a roof infront of the windows and there would be no problem getting onto the roof, at 8 foot drop to floor outside not really a problem, but as a 69 year old I would not want to use that route, and I don't have the skill or knowledge to say if they could or could not be considered as escape routes, seems window fitters did as all have the release to open wide to use as escape route, but as an electrician I really don't need to know, if there needs to be a designated route some one with the training will mark it up, and with 8 ways out of that house one would not designate all 8 as escape routes.

As to plastic there is thermal plastic and thermal setting and the old Wylex fuse box has never had a problem with fire to my knowledge, even with the wood base, and the Electricial Safety Council show a picture of one saying how it can still be used, being plastic and no RCD, so to say they are wrong is sticking ones neck out somewhat.

I have over the last month seen so many posts on EICR, most around code C2, and what I can't decide is do we need a C2? Yes it may seem extreme, but what can the courts do if I issue a C3 instead of C2, one has still highlighted a problem, all 230 volt is protentialy dangerous so rather a silly phrase, and can't really see how any inspector can be said he was wrong never to issue a C2?

So if C2 is causing problems, simple, don't class anything as C2, either give it C1 or C3.

There is a picture of rubber cables on a light fitting in the guide 4 which it says C2, really, once disturbed likely C1 as it could go on fire at any time. Yes had this with mothers house and did wait a year before full rewire, but I was taking a chance, and with some one elses life should we take chances, I would say all rental property should have RCD protection, but that is my personal view, not what BS 7671 says, it allows continued use without RCD protection if not asked for when designed, so I can recommend fitting one, C2 but can't really give it a C3 even if I really strongly think one should be fitted and have done so with my own house.

So just don't use C2 simple.

 

[JohnW2]

The first time I remember seeing this advice was in ESC Best Practice Guide 4 Issue 4 (carried into Issue 5). The guidance was/is to give a C3 where the CU is combustible and under stairs or blocking a hallway. By omission, no code is recommended if the CU is not in such location.

Good to see you; I hope all is well with you and yours.

As EFLI has said, that's just 'one opinion', and it's clear that there is a range of opinions.

What exactly is meant by a CU which is 'blocking a hallway'?

As I keep saying, I think it's very unsatisfactory that this decision is left to individual opinion/judgement/discretion (whether on the part of individual electricians or organisations). It wasn't quite so bad in the past because if one had reason to strongly disagree with the findings/coding on an EICR, as a last resort one could always commission a 'second opinion' EICR, in the hope that it would be more in keeping with one's expectations. However, this new legislation means that, for rented property, the appearance of an initial EICR with any C2s (or C1s) automatically triggers a legal requirement to have the indicated "urgent remedial work" undertaken within 28 days.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

As said many times before the EICR was never designed to be a legal document in the way it is being used in rental property, easy work around is don't use C2, you can write down how dangerous no problem with that, just stop the use of C2 code.