EICR codes when RECENT works don't comply!?

[S P]

Just carried out an EICR on a standard semi which has had some work done in 2015-16. The works included connecting an outbuilding to the rear of the house to create a hall, WC and utility room. The Kitchen was also replaced, new cooker and shower circuits installed.

The 1 sockets circuit does have RCBO protection but is the only one!

Putting the other issues I found to one side, I wanted to know what others thought about this -

As I know the installation date was at a time the regs called for RCD protection everywhere, am I right to think this warrants a C2 for i.e. no rcd for cables >50mm on GF lighting circuit, just for a start..

If installed to 16th I would C3.

Naturally, client has no certs...
But - "he was very good and qualified.."

 

[Andy78]

You inspect to the current standard on the day you inspect. Your inspection is a report on potential danger. Why is something classed as more dangerous for the same issue because of a different installation date ?
I would note on the cert that recent work carried out did not comply to the regulations and let the customer take that up with the installer.

 

[buzzlightyear]

As I know the installation date was at a time the regs called for RCD protection everywhere, am I right to think this warrants a C2 for i.e. no rcd for cables >50mm on GF lighting circuit, just for a start..

If installed to 16th I would C3

that would be a C2 for not having RCD protection up to the current 17th ,soon be the big blue book soon .

 

[Octopus]

You should inspect to the 17th Edition AMD2 ...............

Clearly unsatisfactory.

Why are you doing the EICR?

 

[Risteard]

You should inspect to the 17th Edition AMD2 ...............

If you're feeling really new-age you could even do it to the 3rd Amendment!

 

[Nigel]

The sockets would be a C2 but for buried cables it would be a C3 for me.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Something to consider, is the date of design.
An installation designed to the 16th edition can then be constructed some years after the 17th edition came into force.
For example the Olympic Athletes’ village in Stratford.
Designed to the 16th edition, construction completed in March 2015, some 7 years after the 17th was issued.

 

[buzzlightyear]

The sockets would be a C2 but for buried cables it would be a C3 for me.

so a hammer or a drill does not come in to it then David !

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Another thing to consider: There is no requirement to provide RCD protection for cables concealed in walls.
It is just an option.

 

[buzzlightyear]

RCDs: protection of cables concealed in walls or partitions - http://electrical.----------/wiring-matters/54/cables-in-walls/index.cfm

 

[Deleted member 26818]

RCDs: protection of cables concealed in walls or partitions - http://electrical.----------/wiring-matters/54/cables-in-walls/index.cfm

Yes.

 

[Nigel]

so a hammer or a drill does not come in to it then David !

So younthink cables buried in a wall are ‘potentially dangerous’ and the installation be deemed as ‘unsatisfactory’?

That is laughable.

 

[Octopus]

Another thing to consider: There is no requirement to provide RCD protection for cables concealed in walls.
It is just an option.

Hum .... The issue I have with this, is simple, only the designer & installer will actually know how a cable is protected in a wall as any other form of protection may be completely hidden.

I asked another installer about why they had omitted rcd protection on 3 circuits recently. ...... They simply said that the circuits complied.... And didn't elaborate .... But anyone doing an EICR on a post 2015 property is going to code such a circuit as a c3 .....

 

[buzzlightyear]

So younthink cables buried in a wall are ‘potentially dangerous’ and the installation be deemed as ‘unsatisfactory’?

That is laughable.

read post #10,next!

 

[Risteard]

Hum .... The issue I have with this, is simple, only the designer & installer will actually know how a cable is protected in a wall as any other form of protection may be completely hidden.

I asked another installer about why they had omitted rcd protection on 3 circuits recently. ...... They simply said that the circuits complied.... And didn't elaborate .... But anyone doing an EICR on a post 2015 property is going to code such a circuit as a c3 .....

That's why details of the design are supposed to be available for review when inspecting. (And of course I know how rare that is!)

 

[S P]

Andy I always hear we can't condemn an installation that conforms to the standards at the time of installation but we are talking about an install that didn't confirm to the increased safety at the time. I get what you're saying "Why is something classed as more dangerous for the same issue because of a different installation date ?" But then why were the news regs bought into place?

 

[S P]

Hum .... The issue I have with this, is simple, only the designer & installer will actually know how a cable is protected in a wall as any other form of protection may be completely hidden.

I asked another installer about why they had omitted rcd protection on 3 circuits recently. ...... They simply said that the circuits complied.... And didn't elaborate .... But anyone doing an EICR on a post 2015 property is going to code such a circuit as a c3 .....

It was clear from the switches I opened the cable was embedded in plaster >50mm

 

[S P]

Something to consider, is the date of design.
An installation designed to the 16th edition can then be constructed some years after the 17th edition came into force.
For example the Olympic Athletes’ village in Stratford.
Designed to the 16th edition, construction completed in March 2015, some 7 years after the 17th was issued.

Another thing to consider: There is no requirement to provide RCD protection for cables concealed in walls.
It is just an option.

Thanks Spin, but your giving this guy too much credit...

 

[westward10]

I have this year converted my downstairs corridor lights to two way, cables concealed in oval conduit, no additional rcd protection and obsolete red, yellow and blue cable to boot

 

[Risteard]

Andy I always hear we can't condemn an installation that conforms to the standards at the time of installation

Although that is an oft repeated phrase it is, nonetheless, incorrect.

Again I will use the examples of fused neutrals: these were permitted once, but that certainly wouldn't stop be from condemning them if I came across them now.