EICR - Code 1 or 2 - for unenclosed conductors in choc-blocs?

[Marcus Vaughan]

Hi all,

I've got a couple of examples of this;

on a domestic EICR.

I'm on the fence with the coding - C1 or C2. There is no copper showing on the live parts - but I wouldn't like to grab it.

I just want to be consistent with this - I mean if it was just bare conductors twisted together then definitely C1 - but if in a choc-bloc?

I'd be interested to know how others would code it.

 

[Charlie_]

C1 - it’s not enclosed

 

[Dustydazzler]

C1

If it had insulating tape wrapped around it then C2

Either was it’s dog rough and needs a wago box whacking on it pronto

 

[Pete999]

As per Charlie C1

 

[Charlie_]

Some might argue that it would pass the finger test, therefore c2.
But imo live conductors are visible so C1

 

[Dustydazzler]

Some might argue that it would pass the finger test, therefore c2.
But imo live conductors are visible so C1

I have never been a fan of the finger test , for me it wouldn’t hold water in court...

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

Definitely dog-rough and will be back very soon.

The consumer unit is a big fat C1 all over - no blank plates on missing MCB's, no busbar guard, some pretty big holes etc.

Found 2 radial sockets on incorrect MCB's (B32 and B40 on 2.5mm)
(Fixed that on the spot).
No bonding to water.

etc.etc.etc.

Might put a couple of pics up on 'pics for your amusement;.

I'm going to code the choc blocs as C1.

Thanks all.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Definitely do some before and after pictures

Very handy for those new to the trade and a right laugh for us old badgers ....

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I would code it as a C2 as it stands.
If this is intended to be within a ceiling void, then C3.

 

[The Flyinhos]

If you are classing as a C1, I would also issue a EDN before leaving site, preferable isolate circuit/s where appropriate and issue Isolation Cert and get the client to sign for them both. If all goes pair shape, back is covered. Isolation cert attached for your convenience.

 

[The Flyinhos]

A good book for EICR is Napits EICR Codebreaker. section 5.17.3 Distribution of final circuits
"Cable connection/joint in live cable(s) not made within an enclosure. Access to live parts Reg 526.5 defect code C1"

 

[The Flyinhos]

Link for NAPIT EICR Codebreakers
https://www.napitdirect.co.uk/p/eicr-codebreakers
I would recommend to anyone who does EICR

 

[Charlie_]

Been thinking of purchasing that book myself, I’m a Napit member so it’s relevant..
Possibly not suitable for those who are members of different schemes though as it may conflict with their views on different codes?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I certain there’s a thread where some of the coding advice is pulled to bits.

 

[SparkyAndGeorge]

Yeah I have the codebreakers book. Whilst it is rather useful, I find that they are quite liberal with the C2's.

 

[The Flyinhos]

Been thinking of purchasing that book myself, I’m a Napit member so it’s relevant..
Possibly not suitable for those who are members of different schemes though as it may conflict with their views on different codes?

I'm not a NAPIT member, I'm in ECA. The way I see it is that every situation is different, but this book is a very good baseline to work from. It is ultimately the inspectors professional opinion. The subject has always been a sticky wicket as the only standard on EICR reporting really was the Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide No 4. Though quite good doesn't go into detail as much s the Codbreakers book does.
Best practice guide 4, free to download
Codebreakers approx £20 +VAT & delivery.

Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety First - https://www.----------------------------/professional-resources/best-practice-guides/

 

[Ian1981]

It’s up to the individual inspecting to risk assess and apply a suitable code if applicable, not for some scheme to tell you what it should be!
As that code breakers ‘guide’ deem pvc cables concealed in walls without rcd protection a C2 and meter tails that are not 25mm minimum csa ( their words not mine) a C2 , I can’t take the book seriously, I feel I should not be taking advice from persons who feel that no rcd protection to socket outlets in commercial installations regardless of use or whether they supply portable equipment up to 32 amp for use outdoors or not, is a C2.
I’m sure the authors do acknowledge the fact that the codes can vary to a certain degree,depending on the situation.

 

[Charlie_]

The thing is though if you join a scheme then you should to take on board their view on matters, if you don’t agree with them then join a different scheme

 

[Ian1981]

The thing is though if you join a scheme then you should to take on board their view on matters, if you don’t agree with them then join a different scheme

EICR s have nothing to do with being in a scheme, as in you are not required to be in one to carry them out so it should have no bearing.

 

[Charlie_]

Obviously if you’re not in a scheme then you’re not gong to take any notice of their guidelines, criteria or whatever other nonsense they come out with

 

[Ian1981]

My company are Niceic, I just think that you should not blindly follow the book to The nth degree and instead , apply your own skills and understanding of bs7671.
Now we all may have a slight variation on what bs7671 says on certain regulations which is fine up to a point but applying C2 codes for tails that are not 25mm....... I don’t think so, not without reason.

 

[Andy78]

The thing is though if you join a scheme then you should to take on board their view on matters, if you don’t agree with them then join a different scheme

I'm in a scheme to facilitate the notification of jobs. That'll do me for involvement.

 

[Charlie_]

Didn’t say follow anybody blindly.
Have you raised your concerns with the nic?
How do your assessments go?

 

[Charlie_]

I'm in a scheme to facilitate the notification of jobs. That'll do me for involvement.

I notify my own jobs

 

[Andy78]

I notify my own jobs

I wish my local authorities were that enlightened.

 

[Charlie_]

Have you tried notifying them yourself?

 

[Andy78]

Have you tried notifying them yourself?

Years back when I started working for myself I enquired about doing so with my local building control offices. They seemed confused and said they were not equipped to receive notifications. After talking to several clueless types and several emails it became clear I would get nowhere and I just joined a scheme.

I must admit I've not tried since.

 

[Charlie_]

They are called scams for a reason and I think the whole notification malarkey may well just be the biggest one going

 

[Ian1981]

Didn’t say follow anybody blindly.
Have you raised your concerns with the nic?
How do your assessments go?

What do you mean concerns?
Code breakers is a Napit publication and not an Niceic guide so he’d probably have no interest.
On the assessment if the assessor questions a code I have given then we discuss it then realise I was correct.
On a serious note I’ve never been asked to change a code that I have given tho maybe add one I have not considered or perhaps have missed.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Code 1 if within reach in an accessible position, code 2 if it's not. Regarding the tails thing that NAPIT suggest is potentially dangerous....Last week I left 16.0mm tails in place on a board change because replacing them would have involved unacceptable disturbance to decoration. The tails have been there since the early Jurassic, show no signs of thermal stress, and IMO are adequate for the present load despite the 100a service fuse. EIC clearly stated my reasons for leaving them in place. and that if additional load is installed consideration must be given to the adequacy of the supply tails. It's also worth pointing out that often where tails are upgraded by an installer to 25mm to the DB, the tails from the head to the meter often remain 16mm, making it rather pointless. Scam guidance on coding is a useful starting point, but must not be considered 'law'.....we can use our judgement.

 

[Charlie_]

If the tails are 300mm or less then there isn’t a problem

 

[The Flyinhos]

I'm not a NAPIT member, I'm in ECA. The way I see it is that every situation is different, but this book is a very good baseline to work from. It is ultimately the inspectors professional opinion. The subject has always been a sticky wicket as the only standard on EICR reporting really was the Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide No 4. Though quite good doesn't go into detail as much s the Codbreakers book does.
Best practice guide 4, free to download
Codebreakers approx £20 +VAT & delivery.

Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety First - https://www.----------------------------/professional-resources/best-practice-guides/

Code 1 if within reach in an accessible position, code 2 if it's not. Regarding the tails thing that NAPIT suggest is potentially dangerous....Last week I left 16.0mm tails in place on a board change because replacing them would have involved unacceptable disturbance to decoration. The tails have been there since the early Jurassic, show no signs of thermal stress, and IMO are adequate for the present load despite the 100a service fuse. EIC clearly stated my reasons for leaving them in place. and that if additional load is installed consideration must be given to the adequacy of the supply tails. It's also worth pointing out that often where tails are upgraded by an installer to 25mm to the DB, the tails from the head to the meter often remain 16mm, making it rather pointless. Scam guidance on coding is a useful starting point, but must not be considered 'law'.....we can use our judgement.

As I stated earlier "It is ultimately the inspectors professional opinion." As like all the books we have BS7671, OSG, GN1-8 ect ect are all guidance. Though building regs & HS acts are law. Each situation can be different, thus it ultimately the inspectors professional opinion, and must form that opinion by the best of there knowledge with the understanding that it is an official document which could be scrutinized in a court of law.
They are the base points at which we start from, not something we try to achieve. In most cases following these you will normally give compliance, but not all of the time. Read, understand, implement, question.
@Marcus Vaughan , hope some of the above posts have been some help.

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

As I stated earlier "It is ultimately the inspectors professional opinion." As like all the books we have BS7671, OSG, GN1-8 ect ect are all guidance. Though building regs & HS acts are law. Each situation can be different, thus it ultimately the inspectors professional opinion, and must form that opinion by the best of there knowledge with the understanding that it is an official document which could be scrutinized in a court of law.
They are the base points at which we start from, not something we try to achieve. In most cases following these you will normally give compliance, but not all of the time. Read, understand, implement, question.
@Marcus Vaughan , hope some of the above posts have been some help.

They have been a lot of help (yes I have been following my own post).

It's interesting to see different peoples take on it and the way to approach it all.

I'm not a big fan of carrying out EICRs because of the ambiguity of it all, and some of the things we find are astonishing and don't seem to fit any of the suggested tick boxes in the model forms. They seem to take me hours to procrastinate over and write up.

Reading through other threads today - there are cases where one electrician would give a code 1 and another would give a code 2 or even a 3 for the same non-compliance.

 

[Ian1981]

If the tails are 300mm or less then there isn’t a problem

Do you mean 3 meters?
Not sure what 300mm has to do with it?

 

[Charlie_]

Do you mean 3 meters?
Not sure what 300mm has to do with it?

If the tails were 3 metres long then I would have more of an issue with them than if they were only 300mm long ..