Burnt out ballast EICR Coding

[Icarus]

Scenario: Visibly burnt out, entirely blackened, ballast in a fluorescent fitting. Would this be noteworthy during an EICR and if so, how would it be coded? My thinking is that its an obvious fire risk.

Still an apprentice with millions to learn, any input would be appreciated.

 

[suffolkspark]

C2

 

[Andy5678]

If there is an internal fuse within the fitting that has blown c3. if it’s burnt/damaged and could still be live, it could be a fire risk so a c2.

 

[Wilko]

Is the fitting still in use and is the damage historic or ongoing? If the fitting is still in use and the damage is ongoing then the risk of spread means C1 to me.

 

[Dillb]

Does the fitting comply with
416.2
Section 421
621.2(ii)
512.2
559.5.1
526.1

The internal section of the fitting is not part of the fixed wiring so unless any of the above are not complied with then its no code from me.

 

[Andy5678]

634.2 detioration, defects and dangourous conditions shall be recorded.

 

[Dillb]

634.2 detioration, defects and dangourous conditions shall be recorded.

So which “non-compliance with the regulations “ are you using to back that up?

 

[Andy5678]

621.2 iii

Installation deteriorated to impair safety

 

[Dillb]

621.2 iii

Installation deteriorated to impair safety

But we are talking about electrical equipment here not the installation!

 

[suffolkspark]

Read the definition below it?? An electrical installation is an assembly of electrical equipment. The lights clearly form part of the installation.

View attachment 43831
But we are talking about electrical equipment here not the installation!

 

[Andy5678]

Yes look bellow.

 

[Deleted account]

Disconnect it. Terminate live conductors. No code.

 

[telectrix]

the fitting itself is outside your remit of testing to BS7671. as pp says. disconnect and no code. just tell customer if he wants to see where he's going , to replace fitting.

 

[Dillb]

Read the definition below it?? An electrical installation is an assembly of electrical equipment. The lights clearly form part of the installation.

And which Reg number backs up the code? The regs only apply to the final connections carried out on site, cable entry in to the enclosure and the suitability of the enclosure.

 

[Andy5678]

the fitting itself is outside your remit of testing to BS7671. as pp says. disconnect and no code. just tell customer if he wants to see where he's going , to replace fitting.

It is out of the remit of testing but is it out of the remit of inspection?

 

[Dillb]

It is out of the remit of testing but is it out of the remit of inspection?

As I said earlier, these are in the remit if the inspection.

Does the fitting comply with
416.2
Section 421
621.2(ii)
512.2
559.5.1
526.1

 

[Nigel]

How anyone can no code a potential fire hazard caused by a light fitting is beyond me.

 

[Dillb]

How anyone can no code a potential fire hazard caused by a light fitting is beyond me.

So you code things are not under the remit of BS7671?

 

[Nigel]

So you code things are not under the remit of BS7671?

Are you suggesting light fittings do not fall under BS7671?

 

[Ian1981]

Regulation 642.2 (iii)
The inspection shall be made to verify that the installed Electrical equipment is:

Not visibly damaged or defective so as to impair safety.

This is from the 18th edition so naturally it’s predecessor may be different but I do not have the 17th available at the moment to compare.

Now admittedly this forms part of the initial verification process but I’d be prepared to use the same regulation method for periodic inspection

Also see 651.2 regarding periodic inspection and testing note (ii) in particular

 

[Nigel]

Regulation 642.2 (iii)
The inspection shall be made to verify that the installed Electrical equipment is:

Not visibly damaged or defective so as to impair safety.

This is from the 18th edition so naturally it’s predecessor may be different but I do not have the 17th available at the moment to compare.

Now admittedly this forms part of the initial verification process but I’d be prepared to use the same regulation method for periodic inspection

Also see 651.2 regarding periodic inspection and testing note (ii) in particular

I was going to look for a specific Reg tomorrow but I had absolutely no doubt that a Reg would be there to cover this.

How can anyone even think it is ok to no code this is beyond me.

 

[Ian1981]

I was going to look for a specific Reg tomorrow but I had absolutely no doubt that a Reg would be there to cover this.

How can anyone even think it is ok to no code this is beyond me.

It’s almost the same(tongue in cheek) as a burnt out pin on a socket but ignoring it on the grounds that it’s not fixed wiring.

 

[Nigel]

It’s almost the same(tongue in cheek) as a burnt out pin on a socket but ignoring it on the grounds that it’s not fixed wiring.

And a metallic light fitting with no earth fixed to the casing.

 

[Andy5678]

Maybe lights should come under pat testing if we don’t inspect and code on an EICR

 

[Nigel]

Maybe lights should come under pat testing if we don’t inspect and code on an EICR

I think they do also.

 

[Andy5678]

Is the OP coming back to make his mind up?

 

[telectrix]

code it as FUBAR.

 

[Dillb]

Are you suggesting light fittings do not fall under BS7671?

No I have already pointed put what remit they come under in the regs.

 

[Dillb]

Regulation 642.2 (iii)
The inspection shall be made to verify that the installed Electrical equipment is:

Not visibly damaged or defective so as to impair safety.

This is from the 18th edition so naturally it’s predecessor may be different but I do not have the 17th available at the moment to compare.

Now admittedly this forms part of the initial verification process but I’d be prepared to use the same regulation method for periodic inspection

Also see 651.2 regarding periodic inspection and testing note (ii) in particular

It is worded differently in both book.

 

[Nigel]

It is worded differently in both book.

So would you still no code it?

 

[Dillb]

So would you still no code it?

If all them regs are complied with, then no I wouldnt. What would you code it if all those complied, and which regs would you use to support it?

 

[westward10]

We never quote Reg Nos as they mean nothing to a large percentage of people. Anyone who decides not to include an item of potentially dangerous equipment in the Report should not be carrying out EICRs as they themselves are potentially dangerous.

 

[Dillb]

The report is carried out to ensure the installation complies with BS7671 though, do you also note other defects on site such as items not being in date on PAT?

 

[westward10]

That is a ridiculous scenario.

 

[Dillb]

, if you think otherwise I'm sorry your just being a tw*t.

If you are going to start calling people names then I suggest you dont post anything, this place is about debate and opinions as adults and about being reasonable and respectful.

 

[Dillb]

That is a ridiculous scenario.

Why is it? Where do you draw the line at what put on your report? As after all a out of date PAT could lead to a similar consequence? Wjat about light fittings that come pre wired, do we also have to strip them down too to ensure everything imternally is fine?

 

[suffolkspark]

Do you not check for cpc at metalic fittings in little old dorris's lounge? Or is that outside of the electrical installation?

If you come accross an extract fan with a toasy pcb and melted internals in a bathroom do you ignore it?

Luminaires are CLEARLY equipment and form part of the installation as defined in the regs and should be inspected.

And whilst the aim of this forum is to factually assist and help each other, we can also voice our opinions, as i have done, and i stand by.

 

[Dillb]

Do you not check for cpc at metalic fittings in little old dorris's lounge? Or is that outside of the electrical installation?

If you come accross an extract fan with a toasy pcb and melted internals in a bathroom do you ignore it?

Are we talking in the scenario of carrying out a EICR?

 

[suffolkspark]

All eicrs, dont get why you had to pm me, you voiced a rediculous statement that they do not form part of the installation and i called you a "fill in the blank" because of it, if i made an equally rediculous statement i would expect to be called out for it aswell.

 

[Andy5678]

Are we talking in the scenario of carrying out a EICR?

Yes EICR see the original posts. Regs have been quoted to cover the situation. And even your own photo has shown equipment (like a light fitting) make up part of the installation.

621.2 iii

Installation deteriorated to impair safety

If I was a paying customer I would expect something to be flagged up for that. Code or not.