EICR Certificate not issued. Not all circuits RCD protected rated C2

[Risteard]

It's a very poorly compiled report to be fair.

You should redact names and addresses from it though, including those of the company responsible.

There is no requirement for 30mA RCD protection of all circuits. Although in practice this may well be needed on all circuits, it will actually be for a number of different reasons. These reasons should have been given rather than some incorrect statement.

There's no such thing as an "Amendment Type 3" board - but presumably he is referring to one made of non-combustible material or housed in a cabinet made from non-combustible material.

Likewise the bathroom luminaire may well have an IP rating, but presumably the issue is that it is an inadequate IP rating.

Lots and lots of boxes ticked in the Schedule of Inspections. I am doubtful that all of those things were checked and that all of them were compliant.

 

[Strima]

The lack of RCD protection for some circuits would normally attract a C3 as the sockets have RCD protection, caveat that all cables are run in zones etc.

Without seeing the other C2 items it's hard to say but I would err on the side of caution and agree with the inspector.

 

[westward10]

All,

attached here is the EICR report .. to me it does not contain a lot of detail
Your opinions please.

How much detail in a typical report should I expect?
What is the rationale for C2s ratings ? Are they justified?

I have deleted the report. Can you resubmit it so it does not show the contractors details and your address.

 

[UKPN]

The lack of RCD protection for some circuits would normally attract a C3 as the sockets have RCD protection, caveat that all cables are run in zones etc.

Without seeing the other C2 items it's hard to say but I would err on the side of caution and agree with the inspector.

I have deleted the report. Can you resubmit it so it does not show the contractors details and your address.

All,

attached here is the EICR report .. to me it does not contain a lot of detail
Your opinions please.

How much detail in a typical report should I expect?
What is the rationale for C2s ratings ? Are they justified?

I the wiring was done before the 18th ed the worst would be C3, if that.
Unless you have bare wires etc sticking out then you would advise immediate attention, so no C1/2 anyway.

 

[davesparks]

I the wiring was done before the 18th ed the worst would be C3, if that.
Unless you have bare wires etc sticking out then you would advise immediate attention, so no C1/2 anyway.

Coding does not change based on when something was installed, the inspection is carried out to the current edition of BS7671 and all items coded in accordance with the current edition.

 

[UKPN]

Coding does not change based on when something was installed, the inspection is carried out to the current edition of BS7671 and all items coded in accordance with the current edition.

Incorrect. as per front of book.

 

[Ian1981]

The aspects to be covered in an EICR include
Identification of non-compliances with the current edition of BS 7671, or installation defects, which may give rise to danger.

Must we go through this every time regarding eicr’s?
It is only logical that they are inspected against the current wiring regulations.
We all acknowledge the HSE foreword about how older installations are not necessarily unsafe etc etc, we cannot dig into the archives of wiring regulations based on when an installation was first put into service as safety has well and truly evolved.

 

[davesparks]

Incorrect. as per front of book.

Front of what book?

It is made very clear in BS7671 that EICRs are carried out to the current edition and any non-compliance which has a safety implication should be coded accordingly. You are probably falling into the common trap of misreading the note that points out that compliance with a previous edition does not necessarily mean something is unsafe.
The key point about this is 'not necessarily' meaning it may or may not be unsafe, but non compliance with previous editions on its own is not grounds for something being unsafe.
Fused neutrals and red and black conductors comply with previous editions, one is safe and not coded, one is unsafe an coded.

 

[Simon47]

My experience with agents is that they tend to take what "the exoerts" tell them as gospel. I've had a number of communications that I've been able to tear apart - the sort of misinformation we've come to expect from the scams, filtered via an agent who doesn't know any better.

 

[Dartlec]

I don't have a copy of the Napit document to refer to, but my Youtube watching of late seems to be showing up some discrepancies between them and the ESF Best Practise guide, which is hardly reassuring to those of us still trying to find our way through the maze.

Personally, I'd say a reasonable attitude might be that a socket that is likely to be used for external use and is not RCD protected might well be a C2 (though replacing that socket with an RCD socket might resolve the issue), while a socket for a fridge in a 2nd floor flat (with suitable Zs and all other things being equal) might well be a C3.

Neither case is inherently "unsafe" though, so we are left to make judgements about what is an acceptable level of minimum safety, in the same way that 70s cars can still pass an MOT, without many of the safety features of 90s cars.

It seems rather like the powers that be are trying to be too prescriptive on one hand (with ANY C2 requiring an unsatisfactory rating, for example), while refusing to be clear or consistent in guidance, which is itself published separately and not necessarily binding on the standards we are all supposed to be following.

In other words, it's all a complete dog's breakfast as usual!