C1 for no SWA cable underground but is in high tuff

[Mr AB]

hi just a quick question, I’ve been asked to re-test a block of flats which has just had an EICR done. Was and old board etc, had 2 new RCD boards fitted so no issues there! They have now quoted a lot of money to replace a cable which runs under ground (no idea how) in high tuff cable. This has been given a C1 and quote is to dig up the road etc to replace. I can see the previous issue when there was no RCD protection but now there is so I personally don’t see this as a C1 now an RCD for this particular circuit has been fitted, any ideas on this going forward?

 

[Leesparkykent]

FI would probably be more appropriate but would still end up with the same result being an unsatisfactory report. If the high tuff is installed in a duct that is to BS EN 61386-24 (twin walled duct) then it’s not a problem. To be honest it could of been recorded as an agreed limitation/operational limitation as not to dig up the car park to establish the installation method of the circuit in question and then it would of been satisfactory. You wouldn’t dig it up to see if there was warning marker tape would you

 

[Mr AB]

Totally agree, the management company are obviously quite keen on not wanting to be paying over 2k for this to be corrected, it goes under the main raod in to the block so you would think some kind of conduit/duct has been used for this but it’s just a guess! Not really sure what to go back to them with as it’s not an ideal situation!

 

[telectrix]

immediate danger? yes or no? ... C1

potential danger? yes or no? C2

improvement recommended? C3.

you can only code as above. it may not be ideal, but if it's safe, then you can't give it an unsatisfactory code.

 

[Octopus]

Definitely not C1

Any signs of damage - if so maybe C2

Otherwise it’s a C3 for me .....

What code number has the inspector given to back up his C1?

 

[Flanders]

Well it is not a code 1. If its going through an area with no soft dig then may be not a code 2 expecially as it covered by an rcd, What you nead to ask yourself is would you put you name to an eicr saying its safe , if yes then tell the customer you will carry out an eicr on this part of the installation and code it as you think , if you could get hold of the installation cert it may help you .

 

[telectrix]

when you consider that a lot of supplies come in in unarmoured concentric, no ducting,

 

[Strima]

If the cable is in suitable duct that provides mechanical protection in accordance with manufacturers instructions then no code, if it's buried direct with no mechanical protection then I would more than likely C2 it.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Totally agree, the management company are obviously quite keen on not wanting to be paying over 2k for this to be corrected, it goes under the main raod in to the block so you would think some kind of conduit/duct has been used for this but it’s just a guess! Not really sure what to go back to them with as it’s not an ideal situation!

Get a labourer to expose the duct...if there is one.

 

[Flanders]

when you consider that a lot of supplies come in in unarmoured concentric, no ducting,

Good point , do they do have their own rules

 

[Mr AB]

Thanks for all the replies, I am basically going to be going along the lines of recommendation that the cable is replaced but currently no immediate danger but going forward testing the circuit every year if any deterioration happens then we replace! At least they know in the coming years this could happen and be ready for it!

 

[Octopus]

Thanks for all the replies, I am basically going to be going along the lines of recommendation that the cable is replaced but currently no immediate danger but going forward testing the circuit every year if any deterioration happens then we replace! At least they know in the coming years this could happen and be ready for it!

Hold on .... was it you that gave the C1?

 

[Leesparkykent]

I don’t really see the point in more regular testing of the circuit. It’s either compliant or not and surely that’s what the customer wants to know?

 

[Mr AB]

No was not me who gave a C1, they had such a list even after having works done and the new circuit boards, I got a call for a 2nd opinion. They have even given a C2 for lights and smoke alarms on the same circuit

 

[Octopus]

No was not me who gave a C1, they had such a list even after having works done and the new circuit boards, I got a call for a 2nd opinion. They have even given a C2 for lights and smoke alarms on the same circuit

And this alone calls into question the reliability and knowledge of the inspector

Again, did they quote a reg number to back up this C2?

 

[Strima]

And this alone calls into question the reliability and knowledge of the inspector

Again, did they quote a reg number to back up this C2?

I wish I’d put my smokes and a separate circuit at home. Every time I turn the lighting circuits off to add another crappy light fitting she’s bought I get a text telling me the power is off, it annoys me...

 

[Mr AB]

No there was 4 x items which had no Reg number, one of the other items was smoke alarms on a light circuit and was given a C2! Very weird

 

[D Skelton]

Is the buried cable mechanically protected from the type of damage it could reasonably be subjected to? If yes, no code, if no, C2.

I'd argue for example that if a non-armoured cable was buried 600mm deep in a garden in a robust duct that would deter a hefty blow from a shovel then the regulations have been complied with and there is no potential danger, however in a car park, where it's likely at some point there will be a 360 digger poking around in the ground, then the regulations likely haven't been complied with and this cable does pose a potential danger.