EICR code for non metal fuseboard

J

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
 
nope. and even after january 2016, it could only be a code C3 at worst.
 
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!!
 
James sparks said:
Hi all

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

Thanks
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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?
 
James sparks said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
James sparks said:
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.
Click to expand...

That table is only there for people too simple or lazy to be able to calculate the size properly.
 
James sparks said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
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.
 
James sparks said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes and most recalls on cars are as you say due to a problem that needs fixing.

An install that was designed to another version of the regs is not necessarily a problem that needs fixing. Seem that the panacea for all ills is the RCD. I'm amazed that we weren't all dropping like flies around the country when we worked pre 16th edition.

I'm not saying that things don't move on and of course if there is something safer now available then it should be recommended, but comparing a problem of a car that needs to be recalled to a perfectly safe installation, is really a bit extreme
 
James sparks said:
ok, as of June? Has a code been sugested?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I don't think I would even put it as a C3. If everything that met previous regs but not present regs was a C3 then there would be a lot of C3's!!

As for a code being 'suggested' James, I suppose there are some suggestions for codes as in the Best practise Guide for an EICR but it is generally down to us to make a judgement rather than follow set codings. There are just too many scenarios for them all to have set codes.

I would be interested to hear what code if any you believe it should be?
 
Last edited:
Its a C3 in the same breath that you'll Find cables in the wall with no 30ma RCD protection on a Pre 17th Edition Property. Its there to see that its not up to latest requirements, but doesn't require any immediate action.
 
Thats come from the Horses mouth aswell as I had a meeting with the guy who chairs the board for amendment 3 changes for the IET. He works for the NICEIC as a consultant, they come out with us doing EICR's every 2 weeks
 
Forgive me for commenting on an old thread but with reference to older installations constructed to pre AMD 3.
I honestly feel that for once, and unlike previous updates to regulations there is a very real hornets nest scenario looming.
I refer to the metal domestic consumer units that will come into force from Jan 2016.
With this in mind, some will be saying a periodic report will code C3 for existing plastic c/u's and that is where I personally have serious concerns.
1st and foremost we need to look at the reasons given for the introduction of the new regulation.
Correct me if I am wrong but it would appear that the general consensus is in relation to fires that were breaking out within London, and originated from the consumer units.
The plastic outer cases were unable to contain the spread of fire to the rest of the property and this was the issue being addressed.
The new regulation tackles the problem by the production of steel enclosed domestic consumer units which are now under production from various manufacturers.
So now we are saying in plain and simple terms that plastic consumer units are no longer acceptable because unlike steel they are not capable of keeping a potential fire contained within the enclosure.
No Ifs or buts that's whats being said.
And in saying that a potential hazard exists by virtue of there design.
Its like saying a fault with the design of a cars braking system has been discovered.
The fault is being rectified on all cars produced after the date the fault has been discovered.
But cars produced before that date, and with the fault still present, are allowed to continue in service.
And for that reason I feel we have all been left with our heads on the potential chopping block.
Because if you look at the REASONS for introducing all steel enclosures.
Like it or not, existing plastic enclosures have now been discovered to be a C2 by virtue of there construction.
As said, if you really think about it, we are being left with very little official guidance on how to code a potentially life and property threatening condition, on a decision that has been made and implemented with very little thought given to the potential consequences to the men in the field ie ME and YOU !!

And for what its worth, I very much doubt if the NIC ELECSA IEE NAPPIT or anyone else would stand beside you and defend your code nowt or 3 decision in a court of law, should the proverbial ever hit the fan !!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And if in any doubt, here's another quote from the horses mouth

Amendment No. 3 to BS 7671:2008 (IET Wiring Regulations 17th Edition) publishes in January 2015.
Potentially life-saving changes are proposed making this a vital update. These changes are expected to include (but are not limited to) amendments in the following areas:

Consumer unit enclosures (to come into effect January 2016)

_____________________________________________________________________


Potentially life saving changes !!

And your being told code 3 from exactly the same people writing this stuff ??? think twice people its your call, its your neck !!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your car analogy doesn't work, there have been plenty of safety improvements through the years and to my knowledge they are implemented from then on and not to existing cars. Seat belts for example, if your car was made pre seat belt laws you do not need to fit one & it will not fail an mot.
Product recalls like the Wylex mcb recall are different and a 'fauly product' should be replaced.

A plastic consumer unit is no less dangerous than a metal one but from Jan 1st this year bs7671 has been amended to say a metal one should be used in dwellings. So if you are carrying out a PIR to amendment 3 then a plastic consumer unit does not comply and should be noted. I'm assuming a code 3 but I will be guided by others like the Niceic.

Why would you end up in court? If you carry out the test correctly and code accordingly then you have done your job. A plastic consumer unit is not a fire risk in itself, loose connections within a consumer unit are though. If a pir has been carried out and there's a fire soon afterwards then your problem wont be a giving a code 3 for a plastic c/u, it will be not picking up on loose terminals.
 
If plastic consumer units are not a fire risk, and its the connections that are to be addressed, then a metal consumer unit is not going to solve the problem.
And if the metal enclosure is being used as a fire barrier of some kind and the plastic unit is deemed non compliant because it lacks the ability to contain a fire in the same way.
Then the plastic enclosure has been discovered to be a potential hazard.
If that was not the case, then steel enclosures wouldn't be in the amendments.
Its the fire departments that have said plastic enclosures are allowing fires to spread.
That's a fact pre or post AMD 3.
With that knowledge your being asked to code a plastic enclosure loose connections or faulty components aside, if a fire develops the plastic will not contain that fire and you are going to say its safe because your being guided by what ??
If steel means a man and his family escape a fire, and plastic means they don't make it because it spreads beyond that plastic containment, a code 3 is going to be a hard pill to swallow.
Sorry but I am not convinced.
This is a bad call, and it will come back and bite someone on the proverbial.
Simply put if plastic was as safe as steel we should still be able to use either but that's not the case is it.
Lets see the coding recommendations in writing from those that set the regulations in place.
Let them take the responsibility for the decisions on what they refer to as potentially life saving changes.
Because if the difference is life saving that's not what C3 is about.
Sorry I am not in any way trying to be awkward, and with past regulation changes I would be happy with the code 3 analogy.
But this needs to be thought through very seriously just wait and see !!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're thinking to hard Baldsparkie. Whether or not a metal c/u will solve any problem is another discussion and another thread.
I'm coming from the PIR angle. I'm asked to test an installation, I test it, I note any departures from the current regs, I code said departures.
The only thing I need to consider now is what (if any) code do I give a plastic board. My thought is a code 3, but if the IEE, or Nic say otherwise then I will be guided by them.
I'd like to say more as I enjoy these sort of discussions but I'm just back from the pub & typing (and rational thought) does not come easy.
 
Yes Andy a code 3 is exactly what should be given, and in every instance where a change or amendment to current regulations as taken place I would be doing exactly the same.
But this steel vs plastic vs ifs whats and whys of containing a fire based on inferior materials and there connections leave all of us with a hornets nest.
Not our doing, and not our choice, but the implications will show how badly thought through this regulation is.
Totally wrong to code 2 because that would be unfair to the customer, but its putting us in harms way with little or no support or backing.
Just wait and see !!
Hope you had a good night mate.
 
Thin steel sheet it not fireproof nor able to contain a fire! Fire will transmit through the thin sheet without the steel combusting
 
So what if a plastic CU is sited within a fire / flameproof enclosure or cupboard as my understanding of the amd 3 regs suggest this is acceptable and will comply

This whole amendment has been pushed on us by the LFB even at Elex Manchester the IET / NIC et al presentations were all using LFB stats to back it up no mention of the national fire stats which don't follow the trend and back up the stats of that small region called London and all the stats are vague regarding the breakdown of the actual cause of electrical fires anyway

The fact is there are a large number of plastic CU's installed that have been functioning satisfactorily for many years and show no signs of iminently causing a fire, the question has to be asked why further investigations into actual cause of the increase in CU fires in a small area of the country was not conducted before introduction of this reg. The industry changes in the last 10 years obviously must have a bearing on the rising number of CU fires yet the powers that be will be reluctant to admit they got it wrong and are happy to gloss over the problems they have caused with this ill thought out response called amd 3

A properly installed plastic CU is it the big problem it is perceived to be? I don't think so

I'm looking forward to the 18th for what the next problem is going to be and the ensuing farce of the IET justifying it
 
Electrical Safety First best practice guide - code 3 only under wooden staircase or on a sole means of escape. http://www.------------------------...June+Newsletter&dm_i=WCP,3HJRY,K6CAVY,CIZFN,1
 

Similar threads

B
Pv EICR code
Replies
12
Views
510
baldelectrician
baldelectrician
Brownie91
  • Question Question
Plastic CU EICR code?!
Replies
5
Views
361
Jock from the north
Jock from the north

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Green 2 Go Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses Heating 2 Go Electrician Workwear Supplier
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Advert

YOUR Unread Posts

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Receive a daily, weekly, or monthly email containing a digest of new and recently updated threads.

Thread Information

Title
EICR code for non metal fuseboard
Prefix
N/A
Forum
Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification
Start date
Last reply date
Replies
36

Thread Tags

Tags Tags
code eicr eicr code fuse fuseboard metal

Advert

Thread statistics

Created
James sparks,
Last reply from
lecsleaford,
Replies
36
Views
17,298

Advert

TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server

Tilers | UK Tiling Forum | Tilers Forums | Find a Tiler
UK Tiling Forum by Tilers Forums UK
Plumbers Forums | Plumbing Advice | Gas Forum
Outside Play
Back
Top