C3s putting you in harms way ??

[Welchyboy1]

My inspector from Napit basically advised me of the same potential situation as the OP suggested
I was discussing with him EICR coding, whereas I am generally more lenient on my coding than some, he suggested 'why take the chance? It’s you who will end up in court trying to justify it against some hard nosed lawyer waving the code breakers book at you!’
And sadly, the way the world is heading I have to agree with him, trying to be honest and doing the right thing is just giving more leverage to a lawyer if god forbid it ever got that far
so from now on I have tightened my coding up and have been now using the code breakers book rather than the BPG no. 4 which I used to use as a reference

 

[telectrix]

• 
  

Posted April 1, 2013
"The Ferrari F1 team fired their entire pit crew yesterday."This announcement followed Ferrari's decision to take advantage of the British government's 'Work for your Dole' scheme and employ some Scouse youngsters.

The decision to hire them was brought about by a recent TV documentary on how unemployed youths from Toxteth, Liverpool were able to remove a set of wheels in less than 6 seconds without specialist equipment, whereas Ferrari's existing crew could only manage it in 8 seconds with millions of pounds worth of high tech gear.

It was thought to be an excellent, bold move by the Ferrari management team, as most races are won and lost in the pits, thus giving Ferrari a massive advantage over every other team.

The scouse lads were brilliant at their home practice sessions, however, Ferrari got more than they bargained for! At the crew's first real race practice session at Le Mans, not only was the scouse pit crew able to change all four wheels in under 6 seconds but, within 12 seconds, they had re-sprayed, re-badged and sold the car to the McLaren team for 8 cases of Stella, a bag of ganja and some photos of Lewis Hamilton's bird in the shower.

 

[Vortigern]

nothing in government guidelines that says Landlords EICRs or anyone else's EICRs have to legally comply with the current edition of the regulations.

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3);
From ESPRS definitions

 

[Dartlec]

Just to add the fun, had a call from a client today who had a report that says "satisfactory", despite having some C2s on it!

Agent is the one that picked up there were some C2s and is demanding that remedials be done, although the front page of the report says 'satisfactory'....

Lawyers would have fun with that one! - Waiting to see a copy before I decide in which way the inspector got it wrong....

 

[Lister1987]

The EICR for my current gaff has got a satisfactory EICR with a few C3s......and an FI, so in theory not satisfactory right? ?

 

[Dartlec]

I'll start a new thread I think - but seen the report now and an NICEIC Approved Contractor has issued a 'satisfactory' report with 8 C2s ?‍

One of which is no RCD for fault protection on a PME system with adequate Zs on all circuits (according to his certificate...)

But apparently there is RCD protection for LV circuits in the bathroom (tick)? Possible there's a local 7288 I guess to give him partial benefit of the doubt...

When the quality of EICRs given out is as bad as most of the ones I've seen, then worrying about minor edge cases seem less of an issue! Though to be fair the ones that get seen by others are usually the ones where there is a question...

Mind you hes only quoted £350 for a Consumer Unit upgrade, which is less than me probably - probably making it back on the £80 he wanted to upgrade main earthing (though it is apparently 16mm) - and £45 to run main bonding to the gas meter which seems like it may be in the same cupboard....

 

[i=p/u]

Not too bad then, just 8 c2s

 

[Dartlec]

The EICR for my current gaff has got a satisfactory EICR with a few C3s......and an FI, so in theory not satisfactory right? ?

Maybe they got the information required between doing the test sheet and completing the front page? ?

 

[Dartlec]

My inspector from Napit basically advised me of the same potential situation as the OP suggested
I was discussing with him EICR coding, whereas I am generally more lenient on my coding than some, he suggested 'why take the chance? It’s you who will end up in court trying to justify it against some hard nosed lawyer waving the code breakers book at you!’
And sadly, the way the world is heading I have to agree with him, trying to be honest and doing the right thing is just giving more leverage to a lawyer if god forbid it ever got that far
so from now on I have tightened my coding up and have been now using the code breakers book rather than the BPG no. 4 which I used to use as a reference

If there was a clear concensus then there wouldn't be a difference between the two - that is part of the trouble.

There should be industry wide and standard guidance (clearly not to cover every situation, but in common scenarios) - with if necessary a stricter guidance for tenanted properties if that is the intention of the law

For example - that any property with cabling less than 50mm in the wall is always a C2 - or that all circuits in a rented properly must have RCD additional protection regardless...

 

[timhoward]

or that all circuits in a rented properly must have RCD additional protection regardless...

I had a great one for remedials recently.
C1 for lack of RCD protection
C1 for plastic CU.
C2 for lack of two colours sticker
C2 for lack of last inspection sticker ?!
C2 for lack of RCD test sticker
C2 for cables inadequately supported

Apparently a quote of £1200 for a new RCBO board and "other urgent safety-critical repairs" though I didn't see this for myself.

So I slapped 3 stickers on, including one the inspector should have put on himself, knocked in 3 cable clips, then looked at the RCD issue.
It was a split load board and 4 of the 5 circuits on the non-RCD side had RCBOs. So only one B6 in the whole board was not RCD protected and it's sole purpose in life was supplying the light in the cupboard where the CU and meter was. And that got a C1! Needless to say I didn't change the board.

 

[Dartlec]

Time will tell what code lack of AFDDs will be in 5 years time, only 99.99999% of properties affected by that one....some very unhappy landlords who were overcharged for a dual RCD board this time round no doubt...

 

[Dartlec]

I had a great one for remedials recently.
C1 for lack of RCD protection
C1 for plastic CU.
C2 for lack of two colours sticker
C2 for lack of last inspection sticker ?!
C2 for lack of RCD test sticker
C2 for cables inadequately supported

Apparently a quote of £1200 for a new RCBO board and "other urgent safety-critical repairs" though I didn't see this for myself.

So I slapped 3 stickers on, including one the inspector should have put on himself, knocked in 3 cable clips, then looked at the RCD issue.
It was a split load board and 4 of the 5 circuits on the non-RCD side had RCBOs. So only one B6 in the whole board was not RCD protected and it's sole purpose in life was supplying the light in the cupboard where the CU and meter was. And that got a C1! Needless to say I didn't change the board.

Not even AFDDs should get to £1200 for a new board unless it's ludicrously large!

 

[Soi disant]

I had a great one for remedials recently.
C1 for lack of RCD protection
C1 for plastic CU.
C2 for lack of two colours sticker
C2 for lack of last inspection sticker ?!
C2 for lack of RCD test sticker
C2 for cables inadequately supported

Apparently a quote of £1200 for a new RCBO board and "other urgent safety-critical repairs" though I didn't see this for myself.

So I slapped 3 stickers on, including one the inspector should have put on himself, knocked in 3 cable clips, then looked at the RCD issue.
It was a split load board and 4 of the 5 circuits on the non-RCD side had RCBOs. So only one B6 in the whole board was not RCD protected and it's sole purpose in life was supplying the light in the cupboard where the CU and meter was. And that got a C1! Needless to say I didn't change the board.

The guy who did that should be :

a) ejected from his scheme
b) charged with fraud.

 

[Lister1987]

Maybe they got the information required between doing the test sheet and completing the front page? ?

They didn't even do that right, I'm on a TN-C apparently ?

 

[LastManOnline]

And sadly, the way the world is heading I have to agree with him, trying to be honest and doing the right thing is just giving more leverage to a lawyer if god forbid it ever got that far

Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
In the case I, m involved in the issue has to do with the type of concrete used by the builder which has caused damage to cabling. Here's the interesting bit. Because I personally have not being negligent in any aspect my work, the insurance company feel they have no liability. It has been suggested to me to pursue the concrete supplier.
Not the kind of service I expected, but as "welchyboy" alludes to, its the "way the world is"

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
In the case I, m involved in the issue has to do with the type of concrete used by the builder which has caused damage to cabling. Here's the interesting bit. Because I personally have not being negligent in any aspect my work, the insurance company feel they have no liability. It has been suggested to me to pursue the concrete supplier.
Not the kind of service I expected, but as "welchyboy" alludes to, its the "way the world is"

What was it about the concrete that caused the damage mate?

 

[Dartlec]

Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
In the case I, m involved in the issue has to do with the type of concrete used by the builder which has caused damage to cabling. Here's the interesting bit. Because I personally have not being negligent in any aspect my work, the insurance company feel they have no liability. It has been suggested to me to pursue the concrete supplier.
Not the kind of service I expected, but as "welchyboy" alludes to, its the "way the world is"

Unfortunately price of insurance seems to be no guarantee that they'll be any good when you need them - and the only way to find out is to need them, which isn't ideal!

Besides which, trying to work out who is actually doing the underwriting is often not simple and turns out to be the same very few names in any case...

I guess at least you get someone saying you weren't negligent! Sounds like the builder's insurance should be stepping in, but no doubt they'll claim it's an 'electrical issue...' etc...

 

[LastManOnline]

What was it about the concrete that caused the damage mate?

They put a retardent in it. Retardent was acidic. This was during the building boom in the noughties. Concrete was delivered on site hours before the brickies arrived due to demand. Issues resulting from the retardent now manifesting

 

[LastManOnline]

I guess at least you get someone saying you weren't negligent! Sounds like the builder's insurance should be stepping in, but no doubt they'll claim it's an 'electrical issue...' etc...

Yes. Its a "cu de sac" basically. Builder long gone anyway. But when you consider the pages and pages of stuff you receive on paying for public liability it would be really nice if someone told you upfront what you can realistically expect to happen in the event of a claim. I am disappointed but can't say I, m totally surprised. Yes, it cost me a night or two, s sleep but I am determined to draw a, line in the sand and not allow it fester. I, m stung but not bankrupted. Am grateful for that

 

[Welchyboy1]

Have being reading this thread with great interest. No need for me to elaborate on previous posts concerns about what we as sparks "are leaving ourselves open for" as we go about our normal daily work. I am currently going through my first professional liability claim. 25 years with same insurance company. Have deliberately gone with the "top of the range" provider (840.00 euros a year for a sole trader).
In the case I, m involved in the issue has to do with the type of concrete used by the builder which has caused damage to cabling. Here's the interesting bit. Because I personally have not being negligent in any aspect my work, the insurance company feel they have no liability. It has been suggested to me to pursue the concrete supplier.
Not the kind of service I expected, but as "welchyboy" alludes to, its the "way the world is"

You say it’s a claim on your prof. Indemnity ins was the matter over an eicr you carried out I take it, or with cabling that you personally installed?