EICR Code C3 Meaning

[NickD]

Current GN3 p.80 says C3 means "Improvement required".

Current GN3 p.105, model EICR form, says C3 means "Improvement recommended".

Your thoughts? Bit of a cock-up if you ask me.

 

[Hawkmoon]

Just another example of the contradictions/ambiguity in the GNs + Regs + OSG that we have to deal with!

 

[Badged01]

Im going for the recommended meaning ......

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I haven't got GN3 but well spotted Nick! Quite a difference between 'recommended' and 'required'.

I think it will be 'required' that is incorrect though.. Best practise guide 4 says 'recommended'.

 

[NickD]

My take on this is that GN3 says "additional protection RCD absent where the current regs say it should be present" is a 'classic' C3. But we cannot say that any improvement is required here, because the installation has grandfather rights to be as per the regs on the day it was put in. So a C3 can be no more than a recommendation.

 

[Badged01]

When conducting an EICR you do it aginst current regs not regs in-force at the time of installation ...... so if current regs say you should have a thingy and it doesn't have a thingy then it doesn't meet current regs and needs coding. (I dont think there is anything about grandfather rights anywhere?) Whether you code it 1,2 or 3 is down to you as to your view on is it safe/dangerous etc.... using your knowledge/experience of the installation and its use, coupled I would suggest with any guidance from the ESC (or whatever its latest name is!). In your specific example, if you believe no RCD is not dangerous/potentially dangerous in a modern electrical installation (or an old installation being used in a modern electrical environment as opposed to when it was designed) code it C3.

 

[Hawkmoon]

When conducting an EICR you do it aginst current regs not regs in-force at the time of installation ...... so if current regs say you should have a thingy and it doesn't have a thingy then it doesn't meet current regs and needs coding. (I dont think there is anything about grandfather rights anywhere?) Whether you code it 1,2 or 3 is down to you as to your view on is it safe/dangerous etc.... using your knowledge/experience of the installation and its use, coupled I would suggest with any guidance from the ESC (or whatever its latest name is!). In your specific example, if you believe no RCD is not dangerous/potentially dangerous in a modern electrical installation (or an old installation being used in a modern electrical environment as opposed to when it was designed) code it C3.

Agreed - and if you think that NO RCD protection throughout is an issue regarding power out in the garden, then you may consider coding it 2 (potentially dangerous regardless of prior regs)

 

[NickD]

Agreed - and if you think that NO RCD protection throughout is an issue regarding power out in the garden, then you may consider coding it 2 (potentially dangerous regardless of prior regs)

And showers with no RCD protection? They worry me no end.

 

[Richard Burns]

An periodic inspection is conducted by considering the current regulations but EICR coding is not to indicate a breach of the current regulations but a situation that may give rise to danger.
If it does not meet the current regulations but it is safe to use then there would be no need to code.

 

[NickD]

C3 cannot mean anything is actually required, because you could be knee deep in C3s and still give it a Satisfactory overall. If it required work it could not be satisfactory. This is logical, Captain.

 

[jaypp]

C3 cannot mean anything is actually required, because you could be knee deep in C3s and still give it a Satisfactory overall. If it required work it could not be satisfactory. This is logical, Captain.

it would require work to comply with latest regs though? which you could recommend!!

 

[Hawkmoon]

it would require work to comply with latest regs though? which you could recommend!!

Good point - all down to terminology

 

[NDG Elecs]

£60 for 7671....£20 for GN's.....amendments aplenty.....AND STILL they can't sort out their ducking typo's!

OP; it's defo the required wording wrong IMO. It's recommended for improvement but not necessarily unsafe as to warrant a Code 2. If it was unsafe then recommended would be required and would be Code 2 not the recommended Code 3 as it would now be required and a Code 2!!

 

[Badged01]

£60 for 7671....£20 for GN's.....amendments aplenty.....AND STILL they can't sort out their ducking typo's! OP; it's defo the required wording wrong IMO. It's recommended for improvement but not necessarily unsafe as to warrant a Code 2. If it was unsafe then recommended would be required and would be Code 2 not the recommended Code 3 as it would now be required and a Code 2!!

Hell thats confused me! Do I code 3 if i think it maybe a code 2 just to be safe, but if a code 2 and unsure give it a code 3?

 

[SirKit Breaker]

Current GN3 p.80 says C3 means "Improvement required".

Current GN3 p.105, model EICR form, says C3 means "Improvement recommended".

Your thoughts? Bit of a cock-up if you ask me.

Well spotted. I would go with recommended as this is what BS7671 says.

I have read through this thread and one or two key points are getting missed.

Someone had said that the EICR is conducted and assessed against the current version of the regs, and this is true.

What the regs say, is that just because an installation was constructed etc to an earlier version of the regs, then this does not deem the installation to be unsafe.

If the installation was constructed to an earlier version, and it is still safe to remain in use, then we can only recommend improvements to it.

What needs to be remembered is that we have never been allowed to install anything dangerous even going back as far as the first edition. the only thing that has changed is the technology, and as this advances then we can recommend improvements to make things safer than it was, and move with the times. all we can say is "The installation is safe, but i can recommend some improvements which will make it safer".

What we can't and mustn't do, is put our opinion on it, we can only state facts,

Cheers........Howard