Poor install EICR 12 year old hotel

[conrad]

Carrying out an eicr. Thoughts on these DBs installed in each room. Around 20 have been installed in this manner with no gland on the supply SWA and the top surface of the DB completely removed.
Note the plasterboard hole is small in this image compared to some.
What do you think other than replacing baring in mind the rcbos for this DB can be £100 alone. Paxolin to slide in etc? Time. Shame for the customer who has had this poor installation.

I have noted as C2 for a number of different reasons. As follows if you wish to read.
522.8.5.
The SWA cable entering the DB has no gland fitted. C2
701.411.3.3
Circuits passing through and supplying accessories in loaction containing bath/shower not provided with RCD protection. C3
527.2.1
Large Hole not made good in plaster board above DB to prevent the spread of fire. C2
411.3.3
No RCD protection on socket outlets, commercial premesis. C2 (Fridge Socket)
522.6.202
No RCD protection for cables buried in the walls. C3
416.2.2
Top surface of Distribution Board has been removed. The integrity of the DB has not been maintained during installation. ip4x not maintained. C2.

 

[conrad]

This is the 2nd eicr. The 1st isnt worth viewing as it doesn't have any observations and wasnt completed by anyone i would consider competent. The original installation Certs are also available. Everyones main topic has been the RCD sockets etc. My main qustion is what would you suggest to the customer about the consumer units considering the top sufrace has been removed, no grommet strip, no gland on the swa ,plasterboard large hole not made good, alot of dust present in alot of them because of this, you can feel a draft through them... it could be a very expensive fix replacing them. Also some of the consumer units are in wardrobes, so theyre not installed flush to the ceiling so theres a gap. Could be a case of sliding paxoling or drilling holes and reterminating through.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The IP rating for the top of CU/DBs is to prevent fingers and small foreign objects from entering the enclosure.
I would consider using an intumescent sealant to seal round cables in holes in the plasterboard.
Same with those in wardrobes, though the CUs would have to be pushed up to the top of the wardrobe to make an effective seal.
If the gap in the wardrobes is to great, then a new top cover for the CU would be necessary.

 

[ackbarthestar]

I'm surprised that the top plate of the CCU has been removed although the hole sizes would be the same and the IP rating when the front cover is replaced fullfills IP4X. Glanding off the SWA is not a problem if it is done before the board is fitted. The SWA is/was used, I presume, with supplementary bonding in place and to aviod the necessity to fit RCDs and also assumes this lnstall was completed before the 18th ed.
Is this really a C2? C3 max and a note regarding the lack of RCDs

 

[davesparks]

If the inspection is being conducted in accordance with BS7671, then the lack of RCD protection would be a code C3 (complied at the time of design/construction).

The edition of the regulations it was designed to doesn't matter, the EICR is carried out to the current edition.
Coding does not change based on when it was designed, if it does not comply with the current edition and this non compliance is related to safety then you code it.

The regulations do say that compliance with a previous edition does not necessarily need an observation to be made and coded, so for example red, yellow, blue conductors don't comply but do not requiteentioning on the eicr. This does not say that everything which previously complied is OK now.

One of the key reasons to carry out EICRs is to identify areas where an installation can or should be improved as regulations have changed to reflect advances in knowledge and technology.

 

[ackbarthestar]

I think, as you well know, the regulations are not retrospective and so would be acceptable to that previous design. Whether or not it complies to the current edition is something else.
As long as the requirements were met for the appropriate edition then it is regarded as safe. That doesn't mean that updating maybe required due to its application. Otherwise the regulations become retrospective which is not what it states in BS7671.

The risk assessment will asertain whether its suitable to be used.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Of course it matters which edition it was designed to.
If an installation complies with the edition it was designed to, then as per BS7671 it is not unsafe.
It can’t be unsafe, otherwise the IET would be guilty of promoting unsafe installations.

 

[Ian1981]

Of course it matters which edition it was designed to.
If an installation complies with the edition it was designed to, then as per BS7671 it is not unsafe.
It can’t be unsafe, otherwise the IET would be guilty of promoting unsafe installations.

A perfect example is the fixing of wiring systems against premature collapse.
Knowing what we know now and following the deaths of firefighters, we can’t now say that an installation which complied to the 16 th edition or the 17th pre amendment 3 are necessarily safe in regards to that particular regulation.
Whether it complied before is irrelevant as we are not inspecting the installation to the date it was designed and installed .
It’s safety must be in regard to the current edition of the wiring regulations full stop.
Obviously if any non compliance’s do not warrant a FI ,C1 or C2 code it can be regarded as satisfactory for continued use but have recommended safety improvements issued to the client.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

A perfect example is the fixing of wiring systems against premature collapse.
Knowing what we know now and following the deaths of firefighters, we can’t now say that an installation which complied to the 16 th edition or the 17th pre amendment 3 are necessarily safe in regards to that particular regulation.
Whether it complied before is irrelevant as we are not inspecting the installation to the date it was designed and installed .
It’s safety must be in regard to the current edition of the wiring regulations full stop.

That’s not a new requirement though is it?
We’ve always been required to install wiring so that it doesn’t present a danger.
All that’s happened, is the IET have addressed poor practices and clarified what is required.

 

[Ian1981]

That’s not a new requirement though is it?
We’ve always been required to install wiring so that it doesn’t present a danger.
All that’s happened, is the IET have addressed poor practices and clarified what is required.

As far as I’m aware we never had to prevent the wiring throughout the installation collapsing prematurely in the event of a fire.
Cables inside trunking, plastic saddles etc all acceptable as they where In previous editions of the regulations.
No mention of escape routes as that came with the 17 th edition amendment 3.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The fact that you were unaware that we were required to prevent the premature collapse of wiring systems in the event of a fire, is exactly why the IET decided to clarify the matter.

Every edition and amendment is published 6 months before it comes into force. During those 6 months, we are allowed to design and construct to either edition or amendment.
After the new edition or amendment comes into force, we are still allowed to construct a design which was made before the the new edition or amendment came into force.
There is no time limit on how long after the new edition or amendment comes into force, that we can construct the design.

If anything in the previous edition or amendment were considered unsafe, we would not be allowed to install anything designed to that edition or amendment.
Allowing us to do so would be endorsing unsafe practices.

 

[conrad]

The fact that you were unaware that we were required to prevent the premature collapse of wiring systems in the event of a fire, is exactly why the IET decided to clarify the matter.

Every edition and amendment is published 6 months before it comes into force. During those 6 months, we are allowed to design and construct to either edition or amendment.
After the new edition or amendment comes into force, we are still allowed to construct a design which was made before the the new edition or amendment came into force.
There is no time limit on how long after the new edition or amendment comes into force, that we can construct the design.

If anything in the previous edition or amendment were considered unsafe, we would not be allowed to install anything designed to that edition or amendment.
Allowing us to do so would be endorsing unsafe practices.

Theyre counting on you being competent and taking into consideration consequences of installing to previous editions etc. Come on. You are digging.

 

[Ian1981]

The fact that you were unaware that we were required to prevent the premature collapse of wiring systems in the event of a fire, is exactly why the IET decided to clarify the matter.

Every edition and amendment is published 6 months before it comes into force. During those 6 months, we are allowed to design and construct to either edition or amendment.
After the new edition or amendment comes into force, we are still allowed to construct a design which was made before the the new edition or amendment came into force.
There is no time limit on how long after the new edition or amendment comes into force, that we can construct the design.

If anything in the previous edition or amendment were considered unsafe, we would not be allowed to install anything designed to that edition or amendment.
Allowing us to do so would be endorsing unsafe practices.

Don’t insult my intelligence please , “the fact I was unaware “
Clutching at straws.
If it was required at the time it would have been in the regulations.
Double pole fusing was once a requirement, how did that one go?
So you must be stating that you’ve always installed wiring systems against premature collapse?
Ever since you’ve been an electrician you’ve always installed metal fixings to hold the cable in place inside trunking?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Theyre counting on you being competent and taking into consideration consequences of installing to previous editions etc. Come on. You are digging.

Not at all.
I worked on the Athelete’s village at the Queen Elizabeth Park in Stratford.
Completed in March 2015, constructed to the 16th edition.

 

[conrad]

I'm surprised that the top plate of the CCU has been removed although the hole sizes would be the same and the IP rating when the front cover is replaced fullfills IP4X. Glanding off the SWA is not a problem if it is done before the board is fitted. The SWA is/was used, I presume, with supplementary bonding in place and to aviod the necessity to fit RCDs and also assumes this lnstall was completed before the 18th ed.
Is this really a C2? C3 max and a note regarding the lack of RCDs

Taking all things wrong with the install into consideration i say C2.
Tha angle which swa enters means that the connections are under stress.
Theres alot of dust inside the consumer units due to the large hole. Theres a draft so anything could enter it etc insualtion...
I believe c2 also for the lack of rcd protection due to them being in a commercial premesis and not being used for fridges in all cases also not labelled and no RA.
I stick to my original coding.

 

[conrad]

Not at all.
I worked on the Athelete’s village at the Queen Elizabeth Park in Stratford.
Completed in March 2015, constructed to the 16th edition.

Good luck on the eicr full of observations now.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Don’t insult my intelligence please , “the fact I was unaware “
Clutching at straws.
If it was required at the time it would have been in the regulations.
Double pole fusing was once a requirement, how did that one go?
So you must be stating that you’ve always installed wiring systems against premature collapse?
Ever since you’ve been an electrician you’ve always installed metal fixings to hold the cable in place inside trunking?

I have never, to this day used metal fixings inside trunking to hold cable in place.
Never had the need to.

 

[Ian1981]

Good luck on the eicr full of observations now.

No it’s fine it complied once upon a time.

 

[Ian1981]

I have never, to this day used metal fixings inside trunking to hold cable in place.
Never had the need to.

Exactly my point

 

[conrad]

I have never, to this day used metal fixings inside trunking to hold cable in place.
Never had the need to.

Are you aware of tge new regulation regarding this?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Good luck on the eicr full of observations now.

As the first EICR is due in 2025, you could be correct.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Are you aware of tge new regulation regarding this?

I take it you mean 521.10.202?
Perhaps you can point out where it states metal clips must be used in plastic trunking?

 

[Ian1981]

Note 2: This regulation precludes, for example, the use of non-metallic cable clips or cable ties as the sole means of support where cables are clipped direct to exposed surfaces or suspended under cable tray, and the use of non-metallic cable as the sole means of support of the cables therein.

Note 3: Suitably spaced steel or copper clips. Saddles or ties are examples that will meet the requirements of this regulation

Metal clips/supports fixing pvc cables inside a plastic trunking wiring system are one way to comply with this regulation.
Not the only way but one way nevertheless.
Quite suitable for retro fitting on existing installations.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I take it you mean 521.10.202?
Perhaps you can point out where it states metal clips must be used in plastic trunking?

How do you prevent plastic trunking and the cables within collapsing in the event of a fire without fire resistant cable retainers within?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I’ve been installing metal cable ties every third tie on upside down and vertical tray since before I can remember.
Again where in the Regulation does it state metal clips are required in plastic trunking?

 

[Ian1981]

I’ve been installing metal cable ties every third tie on upside down and vertical tray since before I can remember.
Again where in the Regulation does it state metal clips are required in plastic trunking?

Perhaps you only skimmed over the 2 notes to the regulation I’ve provided??

 

[Ian1981]

I’ve been installing metal cable ties every third tie on upside down and vertical tray since before I can remember.
Again where in the Regulation does it state metal clips are required in plastic trunking?

Of course you have!
That is not the discussion tho is it?
The point is that it was not a requirement of the regulations no matter how much you spin it!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Perhaps you only skimmed over the 2 notes to the regulation I’ve provided??

Sorry, thought we were working to the 18th edition.

 

[Ian1981]

Sorry, thought we were working to the 18th edition.

Most of us now are

 

[Deleted member 26818]

From the 18th:
521.10.202 Wiring systems shall be supported such that they will not be liable to premature collapse in the event of a fire.
NOTE 1: Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes may hinder evacuation and firefighting activities.
NOTE 2: Cables installed in or on steel cable containment systems are deemed to meet the requirements of this regulation.
NOTE 3: This regulation precludes, for example, the use of non-metallic cable clips or cable ties as the sole means of support where cables are clipped direct to exposed surfaces or suspended under cable tray, and the use of non-metallic cable trunking as the sole means of support of the cables therein.
NOTE 4: Suitably spaced steel or copper clips, saddles or ties are examples that will meet the requirements of this regulation.

 

[Ian1981]

So you still believe that you do not need to secure a cable contained in pvc trunking?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

So you still believe that you do not need to secure a cable contained in pvc trunking?

You don’t need to in every event.

 

[conrad]

As the first EICR is due in 2025, you could be correct.

Change of occupancy may require one sooner etc..

 

[Bellendian]

You don’t need to in every event.

I'm curious about this one?

 

[ackbarthestar]

Taking all things wrong with the install into consideration i say C2.
Tha angle which swa enters means that the connections are under stress.
Theres alot of dust inside the consumer units due to the large hole. Theres a draft so anything could enter it etc insualtion...
I believe c2 also for the lack of rcd protection due to them being in a commercial premesis and not being used for fridges in all cases also not labelled and no RA.
I stick to my original coding.

We have a problem here. That which is wrong by todays standards was acceptable by previous standards.
As I've stated already the regs are not retrospective. That would suggest another method of recording any inadequacies.
To say that it is dangerous would imply that the previous regulations were in fact wrong. As far as your coding is concerned, I think you should take it up with the JPEL/64 committee.

 

[conrad]

We have a problem here. That which is wrong by todays standards was acceptable by previous standards.
As I've stated already the regs are not retrospective. That would suggest another method of recording any inadequacies.
To say that it is dangerous would imply that the previous regulations were in fact wrong. As far as your coding is concerned, I think you should take it up with the JPEL/64 committee.

As i stated. My coding is all inline with the napit codebreaker book which for me is a good reference point.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I’ve been installing metal cable ties every third tie on upside down and vertical tray since before I can remember.
Again where in the Regulation does it state metal clips are required in plastic trunking?

It doesn't, however undoubtedly cables within a plastic trunking would not comply without fire resistant support.