a bitter ex collegue!

[J.C.E]

Evening guys

currently got a bit of a pain in the azz ex collegue- use to work for the same company as me- now working for one of our clients- left on bad terms with our boss- and it seems he is trying to flex his muscles a bit- and is getting a little annoying now lol!

he over looks the eicr's that we do for his company and has the power to reject them and send back to us etc..

a few points I want some advise on:

I made a observations-

'Absence of RCD protection to circuits in a location containing a bath or shower, where supplementary bonding appears to be present. -C3'

to which he replied:

'The use of the word “appears” indicates that I could also not be there or not be complete, when it comes to Sup bonding or RCD protection it needs either or (ideally both) but if it doesn’t have RCD protection and only appears to have Sup bonding then this would raise a concern. It needs to be a statement of fact not allowing for any interpretation like we are trying to do now. To back this up The word “appears” leaves it open to doubt, Regulation 415.2.2 covers this and the R<50 V/Ia comes into play.'

I sort of agree/see his point- but If you can't visually see the sup bonding- but R<50V/Ia is met- then rcd is no required and sup bonding APPEARS to be present! what are your thoughts???

Also another one:

Absence of RCD protection to socket to be used by an un-skilled person (cooker switch socket)- unlike to be used for outside use- recommend protecting by RCD. -C3

his comment...

If the engineer can defiantly justify that this will not lead outside, for instance if its obstructed by a large item such as a fridge then I can understand a socket on the ground floor not being RCD protected. But unless this is only my interpretation current regs would pretty much rule out accessible (exceptions my point above for instance) socket outlet on the ground floor of not being applicable for the admittance of RCD protection. Regulation 411.3.3 only exempts labelled or identified for connection of a particular item of equipment. I wouldn’t have thought a cooker socket would come under this. Could this have not been played safe and RCD protected anyway to avoid doubts and future potential dangers?

as this is a eicr for a existing install- can't issue a c2 just because it isn't up to the current edition. Electrician testing to use his judgement right?

Thoughts???

 

[Octopus]

Use fewer words and code correctly!

 

[J.C.E]

Use fewer words and code correctly!

how would you code?

 

[Octopus]

on an older install, items not complying to the existing regs are C3 IMHO

 

[J.C.E]

on an older install, items not complying to the existing regs are C3 IMHO

might want to re read my post...

 

[Octopus]

might want to re read my post...

as I previously said - use fewer word.

Cooker isolator with socket - no rcd protection - C3

He sounds a bit of a pedantic muppet tbh

 

[J.C.E]

as I previously said - use fewer word.

Cooker isolator with socket - no rcd protection - C3

He sounds a bit of a pedantic muppet tbh

Yh fair enough point- should be easy for a normal person to understand etc..

We get on- on a personal level- but since he has left hes become a bit of a busy bee!

stick to my guns regarding the "appears to be sup bonded"?

anyone have a good link/pdf regarding- not coding stuff c2 just because its not up to current regs (ie this cooker switch socket)

 

[gnselectricals]

All bonding connections should be available for test purposes so code 3 for me

 

[J.C.E]

All bonding connections should be available for test purposes so code 3 for me

not so much whether the sup bonding was on show or not that is the questions.
-More my choice of wording....I have put 'appears' as couldn't see it- but R<50V/Ia was met

 

[Marvo]

If he's being this pedantic there's not much you can do other than up your game with your terminology. If you can't see the bonding just put 'unable to verify visually' rather than 'appears'.

 

[J.C.E]

If he's being this pedantic there's not much you can do other than up your game with your terminology. If you can't see the bonding just put 'unable to verify visually' rather than 'appears'.

perfect marv

your thoughts on him wanting me to c2 the cooker switch with a socket?

 

[Marvo]

perfect marv

your thoughts on him wanting me to c2 the cooker switch with a socket?

No thoughts I'm afraid, living in sub-Saharan Africa the UK EICR thing is all Greek to me.

 

[Plonker 3]

I would be asking him why he hasnt carried the EICR if he is questioning the judgemment of the one issued to him.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I would not have included any reference to supplementary bonding in my comment.
I would have just noted the lack of RCD protection and then applied the appropriate code, be it a C2 or a C3.
If there had been no supplementary bonding then I would have made a separate comment.
Don't actually see how R<50V/Ia comes into play, as there is no RCD protection?

The next comment should have read something like: Lack of 30mA RCD protection for socket-outlets, intended for general use by ordinary persons.
I would not have mentioned outside, as that would be a separate comment if applicable.

The fact that there is no RCD protection for a socket which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors, suggests that the installation has never complied with the requirements of the Regulations.
How to code an installation which has never complied, is up to the individual inspector.

The main problem I can see, is that you seem to want to lump two comments into one.
Keeping the comments separate allows you to reference the particular Regulation, without then having to explain why you have commented on something else which is revered to in another Regulation or even a Regulation which no longer exists.

 

[ian.settle1]

There's not a lot you can do as he now works for the client he can make you and the company you work for lifes hell if he wants

 

[markc123]

Agree with all the above J.C.E

You've coded right imo but being honest your terminology isn't the best - something to work on, can all be guilty of that.

As for the nightmare that is your ex colleague ... bang his missus :lol: