Couple of EICR schedule of test results questions

[SJD]

Being relatively new to EICR testing, I was not totally sure how best to enter a couple things found on an old house periodic earlier this week, and would be grateful for opinions.

1. For a single 13A socket that had been connected as a spur at the fuse board (with 2.5mm2 cable) to the wrong side of a fuse - so it's only protection is the DNO fuse - what would you put on the test sheet for the protective device? The DNO fuse type/rating etc, or a statement that is has no protection (since the DNO fuse is covered separately)?

2. For the same fuse board, if fuses 1 and 2 are for the N of two socket circuits, and fuses 3 and 4 are for the L of the two socket circuits, again how best to enter on the test results schedule? A note against positions 1 and 2 that these are fused neutrals, and the actual circuit data and test results against positions 3 and 4?

And record as C2 in both cases?

Steve.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

Being relatively new to EICR testing, I was not totally sure how best to enter a couple things found on an old house periodic earlier this week, and would be grateful for opinions.

1. For a single 13A socket that had been connected as a spur at the fuse board (with 2.5mm2 cable) to the wrong side of a fuse - so it's only protection is the DNO fuse - what would you put on the test sheet for the protective device? The DNO fuse type/rating etc, or a statement that is has no protection (since the DNO fuse is covered separately)?

I wouldn't, I'd disconnect it as its a "C1" and to leave it like that is tantamount to negligence and any C1 should be corrected when found if possible.

2. For the same fuse board, if fuses 1 and 2 are for the N of two socket circuits, and fuses 3 and 4 are for the L of the two socket circuits, again how best to enter on the test results schedule? A note against positions 1 and 2 that these are fused neutrals, and the actual circuit data and test results against positions 3 and 4?

Never seen that. Not sure. It's wrong obviously but not necessarily immediately dangerous (IMO). C2. Sort it out quick though. Sounds a dogs dinner

And record as C2 in both cases?

Steve.

My answers in red above

 

[Guest55]

My answers in red above

In regards to issue 1 , morally and ethically youre correct , but technically youre not.
Whilst carring out an EICR / PIR , the tester is in no way obliged to make any repairs / alterations - you just report what you see.
If as you say its a code 1 fault , which i concour with , just record it with any other code 1 faults on the report and bring to the clients attention as a serious hazard - not repairing it doesnt make you responsible for it being there in the first place.
If you found 10 other code 1 defects would you fix them all as you went along ?
What if all the other code 1's are really expensive to fix ? Like the code 1 below ?

Issue 2 , fused neutrals , banned decades ago , code 1 again.
As for recording it on your circuit schedule , ignore the neutral fuseways 1 + 2 , just record socket circuit A on fuse 3 , socket circuit B on fuse 4.

 

[Top Cat]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^As above^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ But not sure if (2) shouldn't be C1 as if the fuse in the neutral blows you have the risk of shock by touching something live when you think it's dead.

This looks like DIY disaster, be interested to see what you find in the rest of the house!


Edit:- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Was for post 2

 

[dwardy]

for question 1 i would pull it out straight away and make it safe. it would be a code 1 which have to be done straight away. it wont cost anything to make that safe and have piece of mind. but i would still list it as protected by the service cut out fuse. as you can then charge for correcting the problems and the re test

 

[SPARTYKUS]

biff55

bit over the top

disagree, pull fuse / diconnect in this case. Forget other figments of imagination type scenarios. This one - disconnect. Was it expensive to do? No.

Edit
r connect spur on right side of fuse. Or if not disconnecting, get customer to sign a dangerous dituation report admonishing you and accepting responsibility for it. Generally youre right about leaving things as you are but.....

 

[SJD]

Thanks for the replies.

Re (1), I should add that the unprotected spur was disconnected before leaving. However, the ESC EICR guide (issue 3) lists circuits with ineffective overcurrent protection (e.g. due to oversized fuse wire) as only a C2, and the fault sort of fits to that case? Though it did not feel right to be only C2.

Re (2), I’ll record it as biff55 says. The ESC EICR guide lists protective devices in line and neutral as code “C2”.

This is an old house, with antique wiring from pre-war (the N fuses) plus some later (60’s or 70’s) DIY (the unprotected spur).

Steve.

Update: After posting this, I checked the previous issue 2a of the ESC guide, and for example in there, ineffective overcurrent protection does get a Code 1. It seems in the more recent edition, it was decided this it has become less dangerous to only get a C2?

 

[Guest55]

biff55

bit over the top

disagree, pull fuse / diconnect in this case. Forget other figments of imagination type scenarios. This one - disconnect. Was it expensive to do? No.

Not over the top at all and youre missing the point.
And that point is your suggestion that code 1 faults should be fixed as you go along , which is not correct.
"Was it expensive to do ? No."
Cost is irrelevant.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

Biff55

the clue was in the end of the sentence, "if possible"

Also for information, from "CONDITION REPORT. GUIDANCE FOR RECIPIENTS" - "For items classified in Section M as C1 (“Danger Present”), the safety of those using the installation is at risk, and it is recommended that a competent person undertakes the necessary remedial work immediately."

have a good weekend. Stella three on its way.

 

[Tonkatoy27]

Going back to last years PIR 1,2,3,4 codes. A number one code, immediate danger present, was explained to me by my ELECSA assessor as any situation which could result in shock or fire at the time of testing. ie, smoldering cables or live metalwork. potentiallty dangerous faults such as wrong overcurrent protection were code 2. If you carry that across to an EICR then it would class as a C2 as SJD says above.
Unless the definition has changed greatly (and all my books are at the store so I can't check) I think it would class as C2.
BUT. As said, how difficult would it be to move the live wire 4" and slap it in the top of a 16amp mcb or fuse if availible or even disconnect it if it's not gonna cause a barney with the customer.

Gonna start on 2nd pint of home brew cider so ignore everything I say from now on.

 

[Guest55]

Biff55

the clue was in the end of the sentence, "if possible"

Also for information, from "CONDITION REPORT. GUIDANCE FOR RECIPIENTS" - "For items classified in Section M as C1 (“Danger Present”), the safety of those using the installation is at risk, and it is recommended that a competent person undertakes the necessary remedial work immediately."

have a good weekend. Stella three on its way.

So would you record that defect in the report even though it no longer exists before the inspection is even finished and the report is written ?

 

[oldtimer]

I have highlighted something like this before when the intruder alarm or door entry system is connected to the live side of the CU isolator so is it gasp horror shock running around like a headless chicken to say look what I found so I will leave it this way Well no in this situation and with yours i would move the circuit in the case of a 1.0mm alarm to either a spare 5/6 fuse/breaker or in your case a 15/32(ring) fuse/breaker then highlight it to the customer I have had a couple who say will I be charged for this and i say no but it sure helps me sleep at night

 

[SPARTYKUS]

So would you record that defect in the report even though it no longer exists before the inspection is even finished and the report is written ?

Nice picture. You answer first.

 

[GaryM]

I'd also leave the single socket connected where it was as anything plugged into it would gain protection from the fuse in the plug top. To be honest, it doesn't present an immediate danger so while I think it's terrible and we would all love to give it a C1 I think a C2 (potentially dangerous, urgent remedial action required) would be more appropriate. After all, it would still result in an unsatisfactory report on that alone.
For it to truly warrant a C1 there would have to be danger present so unless there's exposed live conductors or cable damage then there isn't danger present.

 

[SPARTYKUS]

GaryM

True, but what if the cable's damaged. The plug top isn't protecting that.


In the end its down to the inspector to code as he or she sees fit.

 

[oldtimer]

I'd also leave the single socket connected where it was as anything plugged into it would gain protection from the fuse in the plug top. To be honest, it doesn't present an immediate danger so while I think it's terrible and we would all love to give it a C1 I think a C2 (potentially dangerous, urgent remedial action required) would be more appropriate. After all, it would still result in an unsatisfactory report on that alone.
For it to truly warrant a C1 there would have to be danger present so unless there's exposed live conductors or cable damage then there isn't danger present.

Gary I am bemused at this as far as i am concerned it would take me 5 minutes to resolve and I have fixed about 20 of these types of problems in the last 25 years and i just cannot understand why anybody would leave it like this I even found an alarm connected this way on a survey so I removed the CU cover and relocated the cable on to a 5 amp circuit the customer was impressed he even said to me that does not mean I will give you the job and I said well at least I can sleep at night 2 weeks later his wife phoned to say i had the job and when I was doing it she said there was somebody who was £40 cheaper than me but his level of service was take it or leave it

 

[GaryM]

Where's the immediate danger though? No exposed live parts that require an immediate disconnection.
Wouldn't you discuss the defect with the client and ask them if they would like you to rectify it? I would.
An EICR is a report of your findings, nothing more.

 

[GaryM]

GaryM

True, but what if the cable's damaged. The plug top isn't protecting that.

Didn't you read my post above?

For it to truly warrant a C1 there would have to be danger present so unless there's exposed live conductors or cable damage then there isn't danger present.

For the record, I wouldn't leave any exposed live parts without attempting a disconnection or making them safe.

 

[oldtimer]

Didn't you read my post above?



For the record, I wouldn't leave any exposed live parts without attempting a disconnection or making them safe.

So you would be quite happy to make an exposed live part safe whilst doing the EICR but you would leave a circuit being protected by the DNO cut out fuse and just mark it up as unsatisfactory well maybe I am looking at this all the wrong way but in my book leaving it safe is what I would do and again we are talk 5 minutes here not half a shift and £50 worth of materials

 

[Tonkatoy27]

It's a question of where you draw the line and how much work you want to do for free. in this instance this fault would probably be the first one spotted and easily fixed and you'd be happy to do it. 2 hours later however when you've found 10 more small easily fixed C2 non compliances you'd be a bit hacked off fixing them all as you've spent nearly an hour at 5 mins a time on each non compliance and you can bet your socks that the client won't pay for an hours labour on top of a test fee they already see as extortionate. (An EICR is only filling out a bit of paper isn't it?)