EICR code for non metal fuseboard

[James sparks]

Hi all

Does anyone know what code on an EICR we are to use for a non metal fuseboard in a dometic premises?

Thanks

 

[Sintra]

None at this present time.

 

[James sparks]

ok, as of June? Has a code been sugested?

Thanks

 

[Sintra]

It'll be a C3 and nothing more for me.

 

[telectrix]

nope. and even after january 2016, it could only be a code C3 at worst.

 

[bigspark17]

Can only be a c3 even in jan 2016, you cannot force new editions on people where there install has been done to the up to date edition at installation time.. See to much of this work being forced on customers by sparks looking for a quick dollar! You can recomend but make it clear this does not constitute a fail on a eicr!!

 

[kevin.bl]

Ye derfo a c3

 

[SirKit Breaker]

Hi all

Does anyone know what code on an EICR we are to use for a non metal fuseboard in a dometic premises?

Thanks

You should be making this decision, your are the one with the benefit of seeing the full picture, we can only guess. But if that is all that is wrong then no code needed.

C1. Immediate danger
C2. Requires attention, does not pose an immediate danger, but if left it will do.
C3. Improvement recommended. Used for any minor defects, such as missing labels/notices etc, and non conformance to current regs.

Read the regs, it clearly states, that just because an installation does not comply with the current regs, it does not mean that it is dangerous. Electricians have never been allowed to install anything that is dangerous irrespective of which version of the regs was applied. If it was OK then , and its still meets the standards when it was installed, then it is OK now.

 

[davesparks]

Hi all

Does anyone know what code on an EICR we are to use for a non metal fuseboard in a dometic premises?

Thanks

No code

 

[7029 dave]

C4 for me.

 

[James sparks]

Bigspark17 - I disagree, you test all installations to the latest standard (621.2) and yes if changes have been made for safety reasons they are imposed on client whether their installation was correct to when it was installed or not, isn't that how safety updates etc work. My car was fine when it left the factory, more testing & research after I purchased it discover a problem so they recall it to update/fix the problem. A simple example is a domestic install with a 10mm main earth. Fine a few years ago then they discover (I won't go in to details) that it's not big enough and that it needs to be no less than 16mm. On an EICR it's recommended (ESC guide) that this is given a C2.
I don't know how big a safety issue they see plastic consumer units as being a fire risk and am awaiting to see what advice they give on how to code it. I'm keeping an eye out to see when they update the ESC guide.

thanks

 

[uksparks]

Whilst in the subject, if when doing an EIC or minor works, and you put you are working to AMD3, would you put it down as a departure that's its plastic?

 

[davesparks]

Bigspark17 - I disagree, you test all installations to the latest standard (621.2) and yes if changes have been made for safety reasons they are imposed on client whether their installation was correct to when it was installed or not, isn't that how safety updates etc work. My car was fine when it left the factory, more testing & research after I purchased it discover a problem so they recall it to update/fix the problem. A simple example is a domestic install with a 10mm main earth. Fine a few years ago then they discover (I won't go in to details) that it's not big enough and that it needs to be no less than 16mm. On an EICR it's recommended (ESC guide) that this is given a C2.
I don't know how big a safety issue they see plastic consumer units as being a fire risk and am awaiting to see what advice they give on how to code it. I'm keeping an eye out to see when they update the ESC guide.

thanks

Why does the earthing conductor need to be 16mm? The minimum size will be governed by the requirements of a main bond, so either 6 or 10mm depending on the earthing system. The result of the adiabatic calculation will always be less than that for the standard SP domestic supply.

You need to read and understand the notes for persons carrying out periodic inspections attached to the model EICR form in 7671.

This is not the same as a product recall situation! My landrover doesn't have ABS, crumple zones or airbags but does have side facing rear seats. It doesn't fail an mot for any of this not get an advisory.

 

[James sparks]

Uksparks - I would use the 'comments on existing installation' box for any notes like this. The departures box, I believe, is for any departures in your work completed.

 

[James sparks]

Hi Dave


I was referring to the earthing conductor size and table and table 54.7


As for the car references I feel we're coming from different angles. Take a voltage operated RCD (ELCB), fine to the regs of it's time, then discovered they're not safe so are no longer allowed to be used. Yes some of it is retrospective but if it's a safety issue the I say it's not. If it were something trivial (not a safety issue) then yes fine C3. We're not allowed to carry out work in a dwelling if the bonding isn't up to scratch. It's probably fine to regs of it's day but not by today's standards and surely we should be, to a degree, judging all to today's standards which should be the safest.


I haven't seen the info from whatever testing, research etc that has been carried out to warrant the change to metal fuseboards and so am awaiting some guidance from the experts as to what classification code we are to use.


I'm not trying to say it's a product re call but how one day something is fine, a short time later it's discovered not to be, it's a safety issue so something has to be some about it.

 

[davesparks]

Hi Dave


I was referring to the earthing conductor size and table and table 54.7


As for the car references I feel we're coming from different angles. Take a voltage operated RCD (ELCB), fine to the regs of it's time, then discovered they're not safe so are no longer allowed to be used. Yes some of it is retrospective but if it's a safety issue the I say it's not. If it were something trivial (not a safety issue) then yes fine C3. We're not allowed to carry out work in a dwelling if the bonding isn't up to scratch. It's probably fine to regs of it's day but not by today's standards and surely we should be, to a degree, judging all to today's standards which should be the safest.


I haven't seen the info from whatever testing, research etc that has been carried out to warrant the change to metal fuseboards and so am awaiting some guidance from the experts as to what classification code we are to use.


I'm not trying to say it's a product re call but how one day something is fine, a short time later it's discovered not to be, it's a safety issue so something has to be some about it.

That table is only there for people too simple or lazy to be able to calculate the size properly.

 

[davesparks]

As for the car references I feel we're coming from different angles. Take a voltage operated RCD (ELCB), fine to the regs of it's time, then discovered they're not safe so are no longer allowed to be used. Yes some of it is retrospective but if it's a safety issue the I say it's not. If it were something trivial (not a safety issue) then yes fine C3. We're not allowed to carry out work in a dwelling if the bonding isn't up to scratch. It's probably fine to regs of it's day but not by today's standards and surely we should be, to a degree, judging all to today's standards which should be the safest.


I

That is not an RCD it is a VOELCB and they are not unsafe, they just don't work! You cannot apply a code merely because one is installed.
Who says you are 'not allowed' to carry out work in a building without the bonding being up to scratch? How do you define being 'up to scratch'? Would you work on a TNS installation with a 6mm earthing conductor and main bonds?

 

[bigspark17]

James sparks.... You started this thread about coding eicr when a non combustable db is in place post jan16! Now everybody has replied saying its code 3 at worst or no code, yet you still seem defiant to c2 and deem it unsafe.?? How can it be unsafe when it has been put in too the latest edition of bs7671 of that time. And your car refrences are pointless.. Bs7671 doesnftcover cars

 

[Spoon]

Looks like to me that the OP is looking for more leverage to get the customer to change their CU's when it's not needed.

 

[andyb]

That table is only there for people too simple or lazy to be able to calculate the size properly.

Bit harsh Dave, do you really calculate the csa every time you fit a consumer unit? Or do you fit 25mm tails and 16mm earth as per table 54.7?