EICR - No Line or CPC Continuity on Ring

[vwes59]

Here's one I wasn't expecting on an EICR. Recently rewired and renovated 2-bed property (2015ish). Having an EICR as a new tenant to move in soon. No reported problems.

I expected to be in and out in about 3-4 hours to be honest, and as expected I found nothing wrong until I began my ring final tests. All the sockets had already tested fine during my visual check and quick test with my Kewtech tester. I was a little surprised to find this property only had the one ring with the combi boiler also hanging off it, given the board was a 10-way with 4 spare ways in it. Made me wonder why during the rewire the property wasn't split into an upstairs and downstairs ring, but anyway....

So, RN tested out fine, but R1 - open circuit, R2 - open circuit ! Oh joy. At this point the current tenant piped up and said "Should I have mentioned some of the sockets were getting hot ?!"

Anyway according to the Codebreakers guide I should be giving this a C2 (Actually I'm thinking of giving it an FI), and handing the report to the landlord. I admit I don't get many outright failures, but this one obviously is.

Anyway what I was going to ask is I'm assuming what I have here is a ring that's functioning as 2 overloaded radials, and somewhere both conductors have a break in them (It'll be just my luck that they will be in different locations). It can't be classed a C1 can it, as this fault could have been there for years, and another couple of days shouldn't hurt. What would you classify this as - C1, C2 or an FI ?

 

[buzzlightyear]

me FI on that test cert .whether its been their years it should be investigated .

 

[Strima]

C2. I would tend to use FI for unidentified circuits, inaccessible connections etc.

 

[Ian1981]

An open circuit on any conductor on a ring final circuit should attract a C2. What limitations are preventing you inspecting and testing thus giving an FI code?
The FI code is massively misunderstood and misused, it should be used when a limitation in the inspection prevents you from assessing something and where did to the limitations, you suspect danger or potential danger.

 

[James]

C2 for me,

Also, odds are that the cable faults are in exactly the same position.

could be a classic diy mistake, drill hole for picture hook. bang goes electric off.
"turned power back on to see if everything was ok"
found all lights and sockets still working, therefore everything is ok!!!
unseen is the hole blown in live and cpc hidden out of sight.

p.s. replace hole for picture hook with any of the following
nail for picture, floorboard, etc.

screw for floorboard, doorframe, shelf, tv bracket, doorbell, coat hooks, etc.

 

[Deleted account]

FI for me. I’m paid to do test and inspect not fault find. It needs further works to find and put right the existing fault. If I come across the fault by chance then I would rectify it.

The job is to report on the installation as it is, not fault find and put right then test.

 

[James]

I disagree @Paignton pete and @buzzlightyear

This is an inspection only.

there is no further investigation required, a fault has been found in 2 conductors of a ring.
report it's condition as C2 and move on.

if it was not a ring, and the cpc was broken, It may well be a C1, no further investigation is required to find where it is broken. just report it and move on.

Obviously to fix the fault will require further investigation (AKA Fault Finding) as it has not been precisely located.

 

[Ian1981]

Exactly that, an open circuit on a ring final conductor has been found, there is nothing to investigate.

 

[Deleted account]

the reason I don’t think it’s a C2 is because I don’t know if it’s potentially dangerous. If there wasn’t rcd protection maybe I would have C2.

saying that I do get what you are saying @James and don’t have a particular beef against your opinion. C2 or FI . Agree to disagree.

 

[Ian1981]

Code FI (Further investigation required without delay)
It should usually be possible for the inspector to attribute a Classification code to each observation without indicating a need for further investigation.
However, where ‘FI’ has been entered against an observation the inspector considers that further investigation of that observation is likely to reveal danger or potential danger that, due to the agreed extent or limitations of the inspection and/or testing, could not be fully identified at the time.

I don’t see how this is relevant to an open circuit on a ring final there’s an open circuit that’s been identified, especially when the regulations require that each conductor is to be continuous.

 

[James]

oh don't worry about offending me, i am open to discussion, not laying down the law!

my way of looking at it would be that there is a high risk of overloading a conductor because the ring is broken and the ocpd is higher than the current capacity of the cable.
couple of heaters plugged in on a cold night and the cable could be seriously overheated and no trip of breaker to protect it.

rcd wont help until the cable has melted beyond holding the conductors apart.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Open rfc in 99% of circumstances would be FI

i would only C2 if I got high readings on the cpc

 

[Ian1981]

Open rfc in 99% of circumstances would be FI

i would only C2 if I got high readings on the cpc

That make zero sense, it’s potentially dangerous if the continuity is high but it’s not potentially dangerous if it’s open circuit which is worse?

 

[Dustydazzler]

That make zero sense, it’s potentially dangerous if the continuity is high but it’s not potentially dangerous if it’s open circuit which is worse?

sorry , what I ment was I would be happy to convert into a pair of long radials if I could achieve the relevant readings for a 16/20a radial and downgrade the mcb

if it has to remain a rfc then I would FI it and insist the missing link / missing connection be found

 

[7029 dave]

If open circuit has been confirmed on the RFC, what else is there to investigate other than rectify.

 

[James]

So, RN tested out fine, but R1 - open circuit, R2 - open circuit ! Oh joy. At this point the current tenant piped up and said "Should I have mentioned some of the sockets were getting hot ?!"

Anyway according to the Codebreakers guide I should be giving this a C2 (Actually I'm thinking of giving it an FI), and handing the report to the landlord. I admit I don't get many outright failures, but this one obviously is.

In this case, i see no reason to stray from the codebreakers advice.

also as mentioned, some sockets getting hot, leads me to think there is a very high chance of some overloaded cables or terminals.

It is potentially dangerous.
do you need to do further investigation to figure out if it is dangerous?
as a temporary fix, improvement the ocpd could be changed for a 20A (still leaving the possibility of some free cable ends floating around somewhere)
but really it needs marking down as a failure so it gets repaired.

 

[Strima]

As a temporary fix reducing the OCPD size will work however the broken conductor needs to be found. This needs to be repaired as a lose conductor could potentially be fatal.

 

[James]

As a temporary fix reducing the OCPD size will work however the broken conductor needs to be found. This needs to be repaired as a lose conductor could potentially be fatal.

You are Quite correct, I did fail to make that clear in my post.
Well spotted.

 

[westward10]

Any open conductors on a ring final is going to be a C2. I normally IR test across the ends to see if there is a tenuous connection.

 

[Flanders]

I think the confusion comes from the fact to rectify a brocken ring requires investigation and further testing. But this is an EICR and you are reporting on the condition of the installation. So in this case a brocken ring has been identified. Which will become dangerous if the circuit is overloaded . No further investigation is required to find out if the brocken ring is potentially dangerous .we know it is . So I would code 2 it

 

[loz2754]

[open_rant]

This is not, in no way, never will be, cannot possibly be, construed as an FI.
No further investigation is necessary because the fault has already been identified. C2.
Yes, further works are necessary ie finding and rectifying the fault.

[close_rant]
[end]

 

[brianmoooore]

Converting a broken ring into two radials without investigating the break is not acceptable. If the break is as the result of a screw through the cable, then there will still be the possibility of a live screw somewhere, even after the the breaker has been downrated.
None of this comes under the scope of an EICR. The fault gets a C2 as a minimum, and if a wander around with a voltage detector finds a live screw, or a screw in a 'safe zone', then it's a C1.
Fault rectification comes later, and if the decision is taken to split the ring into two radials is made, then the section of cable with the fault needs to be identified and completely disconnected at both ends.

 

[LewisM]

Had exactly the same before and this was the cause as previously said live and earth blown apart.

 

[ruston]

Personally this bit would of worried me .

So, RN tested out fine, but R1 - open circuit, R2 - open circuit ! Oh joy. At this point the current tenant piped up and said "Should I have mentioned some of the sockets were getting hot ?!"

 

[vwes59]

Just seen an image of a damaged cable and the body of a mouse, and it's made me remember a throw away comment from the tenant that they've had mouse issues. Just shows how important it is to listen to the occupier as well as doing the inspection. I admit that just didn't register with me.

I can see the arguments for and against a C2 or FI in this case. I've found a fault and know what it is, but currently I don't know where it is or the fix to put it right, so the first bit is a C2, but it's also an FI because I don't know why the fault exists. However I've only been paid to do the EICR not to fix, so you could say I've provided the information necessary for another sparky to investigate and fix, so yes I can see a C2 would be right. I do wonder if the FI status should be scrapped to be honest.

 

[i=p/u]

unidentified circuits can have FI

 

[mark101]

I disagree @Paignton pete and @buzzlightyear

This is an inspection only.

there is no further investigation required, a fault has been found in 2 conductors of a ring.
report it's condition as C2 and move on.

if it was not a ring, and the cpc was broken, It may well be a C1, no further investigation is required to find where it is broken. just report it and move on.

Obviously to fix the fault will require further investigation (AKA Fault Finding) as it has not been precisely located.

You can't report a C1 and move on you either have to fix it there and then or isolate that circuit. I have just today been to a job that someone else has inspected (eicr) and failed because there was no end to end continuity on house sockets r1 and rn but cpc was ok, I was asked to attend and fix the fault the other tester found. (I found the fault it was an incorrectly terminated spur unit) however this fault led to severe thermal damage on two of the sockets worse I have seen in a long time to be honest, back of skts melted away another day or 2 and this could of been much worse. This gave cause of concern to me as should the electrician who tested this leave the property knowing there was no continuity on the ring and knowing this can lead to excessive overload on the circuit

 

[DPG]

You can't report a C1 and move on you either have to fix it there and then or isolate that circuit. I have just today been to a job that someone else has inspected (eicr) and failed because there was no end to end continuity on house sockets r1 and rn but cpc was ok, I was asked to attend and fix the fault the other tester found. (I found the fault it was an incorrectly terminated spur unit) however this fault led to severe thermal damage on two of the sockets worse I have seen in a long time to be honest, back of skts melted away another day or 2 and this could of been much worse. This gave cause of concern to me as should the electrician who tested this leave the property knowing there was no continuity on the ring and knowing this can lead to excessive overload on the circuit

Looks like that's had loose connections.

 

[i=p/u]

Mark 101, he does not have to fix it, unless agreed Of course. As for disconnecting circuits, that's another story....

 

[Deleted account]

It all comes back to whether is a C1 or not.

if you deemed it to be a C1 you have to either correct it or dont re energise it.

any other code, yes report and move on. You are not there to make alterations additions or repairs. You are 5here to report on the condition of the installation at the time of testing.

obviously an FI could be an immediately dangerous situation after further investigation, but at this stage before you investigate you won’t know because you haven’t looked into the fault yet as that’s not what you are there to do.

You can’t criticise a sparky who fails to identify an immediately dangerous situation in a circuit if they have classed that circuit as FI. they have identified something is wrong but would need further investigation to know if it’s a C1 or C2.

 

[mark101]

Looks like that's had loose connections.

It looked like that to me as well but I checked terminations and they were great it was literally due to overload and wrong size mcb on circuit due to fault conditions

 

[oracle]

Here's one I wasn't expecting on an EICR. Recently rewired and renovated 2-bed property (2015ish). Having an EICR as a new tenant to move in soon. No reported problems.

I expected to be in and out in about 3-4 hours to be honest, and as expected I found nothing wrong until I began my ring final tests. All the sockets had already tested fine during my visual check and quick test with my Kewtech tester. I was a little surprised to find this property only had the one ring with the combi boiler also hanging off it, given the board was a 10-way with 4 spare ways in it. Made me wonder why during the rewire the property wasn't split into an upstairs and downstairs ring, but anyway....

So, RN tested out fine, but R1 - open circuit, R2 - open circuit ! Oh joy. At this point the current tenant piped up and said "Should I have mentioned some of the sockets were getting hot ?!"

Anyway according to the Codebreakers guide I should be giving this a C2 (Actually I'm thinking of giving it an FI), and handing the report to the landlord. I admit I don't get many outright failures, but this one obviously is.

Anyway what I was going to ask is I'm assuming what I have here is a ring that's functioning as 2 overloaded radials, and somewhere both conductors have a break in them (It'll be just my luck that they will be in different locations). It can't be classed a C1 can it, as this fault could have been there for years, and another couple of days shouldn't hurt. What would you classify this as - C1, C2 or an FI ?

Broken ring, sockets getting hot. 20 A accessories on 32A breaker? Fire risk. F1

 

[littlespark]

Broken ring, sockets getting hot. 20 A accessories on 32A breaker? Fire risk. F1

Whats F1?.... you mean "FI" for Further Investigation?

 

[Dustydazzler]

F1 = Motor Racing ?

Broken ring = painful

 

[daud09]

An open circuit on any conductor on a ring final circuit should attract a C2. What limitations are preventing you inspecting and testing thus giving an FI code?
The FI code is massively misunderstood and misused, it should be used when a limitation in the inspection prevents you from assessing something and where did to the limitations, you suspect danger or potential danger.

I am going to disagree and advise that you should base the answer on your findings as your initially there to carry out a condition report. If you test a circuit and find there is no conrinuity of CPC and the problem is not starimg you in the face, then you write down FI in order to advise the client as per your findings. If you see a break in cable and again your remit is to report findings then you add C2 to the report. If however, your remit is to report and resolve then you write the code that applies. There is no science and secret behind codes. The issue is people reading too much into a simple task. C1 dangerous, C2 is potentially dangerous, C3 advisory and FI further investigation to determine result.

 

[brianmoooore]

FI means That you are suspicious that there may be a fault, such as a taped up joint buried in a wall, but have no direct visual evidence. A proven fault, such as an open circuit conductor on a ring is a C2 every time. FI does not refer to the actual fault finding procedure.

 

[7029 dave]

I am going to disagree and advise that you should base the answer on your findings as your initially there to carry out a condition report. If you test a circuit and find there is no conrinuity of CPC and the problem is not starimg you in the face, then you write down FI in order to advise the client as per your findings. If you see a break in cable and again your remit is to report findings then you add C2 to the report. If however, your remit is to report and resolve then you write the code that applies. There is no science and secret behind codes. The issue is people reading too much into a simple task. C1 dangerous, C2 is potentially dangerous, C3 advisory and FI further investigation to determine result.

I disagree, if open circuit has been confirmed on RFC then rectification is the next step not FI surely.?

 

[nicebutdim]

I am going to disagree and advise that you should base the answer on your findings as your initially there to carry out a condition report. If you test a circuit and find there is no conrinuity of CPC and the problem is not starimg you in the face, then you write down FI in order to advise the client as per your findings. If you see a break in cable and again your remit is to report findings then you add C2 to the report. If however, your remit is to report and resolve then you write the code that applies. There is no science and secret behind codes. The issue is people reading too much into a simple task. C1 dangerous, C2 is potentially dangerous, C3 advisory and FI further investigation to determine result.

The answer is in the last two letters of the acronym 'EICR'. If you're tasked with repairing anything you find, then any issues you resolved won't be coded - if you find a fault and can't repair it, then you report on the condition of the installation at the time of writing.

 

[brianmoooore]

The answer is in the last two letters of the acronym 'EICR'. If you're tasked with repairing anything you find, then any issues you resolved won't be coded - if you find a fault and can't repair it, then you report on the condition of the installation at the time of writing.

Exactly! Repairs are not in the remit of an EICR, although myself and most others will deal with very simple faults to repair as they go. Bit like the MOT test for your car, when the tester sticks on a new wiper blade or changes a brake light lamp to avoid failing the car.

 

[James]

my garage issue a fail cert for a faulty lamp
even though i tell them if it needs lamps or brake pads etc, just to do it and send me the bill.

normally i get
fail cert
invoice for number plate lamp etc.
pass cert

i suppose it is the correct way of doing it and also stops the garage from having an unusual pass/fail ratio that might lead them to being checked for irregular practices.

edit, that leads me on to, why dont the part p scams, keep an eye on members that have unusual ratio's of satisfactory vs unsatisfactory eicr's and look closely at the ones who are passing nearly 100% of certificates issued?