DICR - Split load boards in HMOs

[murphy21]

How would you code for circuits not protected by RCD in HMOs, the circuits being, lighting, water heaters and storage heating?
I'm thinking code 3, my main concern is the switch drops having no protection, just wondered if others agree.

 

[Darkwood]

Welcome to the forum

 

[Pete999]

How would you code for circuits not protected by RCD in HMOs, the circuits being, lighting, water heaters and storage heating?
I'm thinking code 3, my main concern is the switch drops having no protection, just wondered if others agree.

When was the property wired?

 

[murphy21]

June 2007 the property was rewired after a fire caused by bad wiring I was told!

 

[telectrix]

so it complied then as 522.6.101 did not come into force till 2008.

 

[Risteard]

I don't see any relevance to what was permitted when it was wired. The question is are these switch drops compliant now, and presumably the answer is that they are not. (Obviously I cannot see what wiring system has been employed.)

The next question is what degree of danger does this non-compliance result in? And that is your answer as to whether C3 is appropriate. (Lack of RCD protection where required should not be uncoded, however.)

 

[Octopus]

I really don't agree to going round giving C3 codes to old lighting circuits just because they don't have RCD protection.

 

[davesparks]

I really don't agree to going round giving C3 codes to old lighting circuits just because they don't have RCD protection.

Unfortunately we don't have any choice, the great book makes this one pretty clear cut.

 

[davesparks]

When was the property wired?

Why? The eicr is an assessment of an installation being fit for continued service based on the current regulations, and the current regulations make it quite clear that a C3 is to be given in this situation

 

[westward10]

Didn't know Regulations gave advise on Code designation what page is this on. Code FI it.

 

[davesparks]

Didn't know Regulations gave advise on Code designation what page is this on. Code FI it.

I assume you don't carry out EICRs then if you aren't aware of the guidance for the inspector written in bs7671.

For reference it is part of the model forms on page 427.
Item 2 of the guidance for the inspector states that the absence of RCD protection should given, as a minimum, a code C3

 

[westward10]

So it does I couldn't see the wood for the trees, that can be my you learn something new everyday.

 

[westward10]

As a post script to the above, assume no more for I have been an electrician for 35 years, the last 25 of those carrying out PIRs and EICRs. The last 20 of those years as a Technical Manager, it is ridiculous I have not seen this before but hey ho no excuses. Will continue to put in Code FI as this is exceeding the recommended Code 3, on what page was that again:6:

 

[Andy78]

As a post script to the above, assume no more for I have been an electrician for 35 years, the last 25 of those carrying out PIRs and EICRs. The last 20 of those years as a Technical Manager, it is ridiculous I have not seen this before but hey ho no excuses. Will continue to put in Code FI as this is exceeding the recommended Code 3, on what page was that again:6:

What form would the further investigation take, and what could be gleaned from the further investigation that could not during the initial periodic inspection ?

 

[davesparks]

As a post script to the above, assume no more for I have been an electrician for 35 years, the last 25 of those carrying out PIRs and EICRs. The last 20 of those years as a Technical Manager, it is ridiculous I have not seen this before but hey ho no excuses. Will continue to put in Code FI as this is exceeding the recommended Code 3, on what page was that again:6:

FI? What on earth is there to investigate? If there is no RCD then no amount of investigation is going to change that!

 

[richy3333]

As a post script to the above, assume no more for I have been an electrician for 35 years, the last 25 of those carrying out PIRs and EICRs. The last 20 of those years as a Technical Manager, it is ridiculous I have not seen this before but hey ho no excuses. Will continue to put in Code FI as this is exceeding the recommended Code 3, on what page was that again:6:

Irrespective of years served, FI is wrong - as others have pointed out.

 

[westward10]

Some toys are clearly being thrown from prams for some reason. Mr Sparks I am employed by a company which has a varied, nationwide client base some of which have varying types of installation, types which may require individual requirements. We rarely delve into the non commercial domestic sector and as such our Reports reviewed by the client who employ people well versed in current requirements. It is at this point of the process where they further investigate whether additional protection by way of rcd/s may be beneficial, often on an individual basis. Of course I understand our interpretation of Code FI may somewhat stray from the meaning in BS7671 it never the less helps our client make their own considered judgement.
Mr 3333 could you back up your statement where you state FI is wrong. I have openly admitted to overlooking the statement in BS7671, page 427 where Code 3 is referred to. This reference however is clearly a prompt to at least make mention of the absence of additional rcd protection by giving a MINIMUM Code 3 classification. The allotting of these Codes is based on personal judgement and if one chose to they could put it in Code 1, 2, FI or 3. I await your reinforcement of your statement.

 

[Andy78]

Some toys are clearly being thrown from prams for some reason. Mr Sparks I am employed by a company which has a varied, nationwide client base some of which have varying types of installation, types which may require individual requirements. We rarely delve into the non commercial domestic sector and as such our Reports reviewed by the client who employ people well versed in current requirements. It is at this point of the process where they further investigate whether additional protection by way of rcd/s may be beneficial, often on an individual basis. Of course I understand our interpretation of Code FI may somewhat stray from the meaning in BS7671 it never the less helps our client make their own considered judgement.
Mr 3333 could you back up your statement where you state FI is wrong. I have openly admitted to overlooking the statement in BS7671, page 427 where Code 3 is referred to. This reference however is clearly a prompt to at least make mention of the absence of additional rcd protection by giving a MINIMUM Code 3 classification. The allotting of these Codes is based on personal judgement and if one chose to they could put it in Code 1, 2, FI or 3. I await your reinforcement of your statement.

This statement is entirely wrong. The coding system is clearly defined in BS7671, GN3, and further guidance is given in the best practice guide which is endorsed by the IET and BSI. The room for personal judgement of application of codes is very narrow, and certainly nowhere near the broadness of between a C3 and a C1.

The FI code should be reserved for items or situations that cannot practicably be investigated within the scope and limitation of the EICR as defined at the start of the inspection. It should not be applied as a means to facilitate a client to get a second opinion.

 

[davesparks]

The allotting of these Codes is based on personal judgement and if one chose to they could put it in Code 1, 2, FI or 3. I await your reinforcement of your statement.

Coding is based on very simple guidelines in bs7671, there is very little personal judgement in most observations.


FI indicates that further investigation is required, what further investigation are you saying is required here?
The fact that an RCD is not installed has been identified, and as far as I can see there is nothing to investigate, no amount of further investigation is going to change this, the observation will still be that there is no RCD.

 

[davesparks]

It is at this point of the process where they further investigate whether additional protection by way of rcd/s may be beneficial, often on an individual basis.

That is irrelevant to the EICR coding, the EICR is purely a report based solely on bs7671, anything outside of the scope of bs7671 should be treated as a separate entity or have maybe a modified form of an EICR applied if appropriate. But no matter what your client decides or assesses the fact still remains that bs7671 requires RCDs to be installed.
If it is decided that there is no benefit to installing an RCD in a situation where bs7671 requires them then it is a departure from bs7671 and should be treated appropriately.

It is still not a matter for further investigation after the EICR has been carried out, what you have described is your client making an assessment of the benefits of carrying out an improvement you have recommended.