EICR code thoughts please?

[D Skelton]

Shouldn't be working live so no danger from removing the wrong neutral. C3

 

[Rampantchilli]

well i had my NICEIC QS assesment last week and this was EXACTLY one of the questions. i started to say C3, but then thought about it, its a no code as there is no immediate danger or potential danger under fault conditions and if working safely the board would be isolated so still no risk, and the EICR is actually for the user not the next electrician to come along, which explains why no ID sleeving on switch wires is also NOT codeable

 

[Deleted member 9648]

well i had my NICEIC QS assesment last week and this was EXACTLY one of the questions. i started to say C3, but then thought about it, its a no code as there is no immediate danger or potential danger under fault conditions and if working safely the board would be isolated so still no risk, and the EICR is actually for the user not the next electrician to come along, which explains why no ID sleeving on switch wires is also NOT codeable

Dont know where your assessor is at TBH.....anything which doesnt comply with 7671 should be coded,and a live conductor not properly identified doesnt comply with 7671 and should be coded.

 

[craig1000]

Cheers for the input Rampantchilli!

On reflection it makes sense, but I would have thought a C3 as for it not complying. BUT thats maybe is just me being ----! Surely no sleeving on switch wires is a code. 'along the lines of 'all conductors correctly identified at their terminations' not the exact wording!

Winds me up how some people fail to just do something which is as easy to do correct as opposed to do wrong or rough as it would appear as it seems it is not wrong to put CPCs/Neutrals in wrong terminals! ;-(

- - - Updated - - -

Dont know where your assessor is at TBH.....anything which doesnt comply with 7671 should be coded,and a live conductor not properly identified doesnt comply with 7671 and should be coded.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ what he says lol^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Englishman]

name me 1 spark that has never had a shock of some sort in their working life.

I would assume that any who regularly work with live equipment often get buzzes.

 

[telectrix]

well i had my NICEIC QS assesment last week and this was EXACTLY one of the questions. i started to say C3, but then thought about it, its a no code as there is no immediate danger or potential danger under fault conditions and if working safely the board would be isolated so still no risk, and the EICR is actually for the user not the next electrician to come along, which explains why no ID sleeving on switch wires is also NOT codeable

bloody niceic. they seem to have a different version of BS7671 to everyone else. they make their own rules and each of them interprets them differently.

 

[Des 56]

bloody niceic. they seem to have a different version of BS7671 to everyone else. they make their own rules and each of them interprets them differently.

They ask of their members that they follow the Niceic rules,but they don't practice the same adhesion when it comes to the IEE rules do they?

It's one barmy organisation and they actually charge for people to be part of that barmy army

 

[D Skelton]

They ask of their members that they follow the Niceic rules,but they don't practice the same adhesion when it comes to the IEE rules do they?

It's one barmy organisation and they actually charge for people to be part of that barmy army

If you wanna be part of the club you gotta follow club rules! That's essentially all it amounts to isn't it.

A phoney club with phoney rules set up to make as much money from their naiive members as possible.

 

[telectrix]

think i'll join the masons next year.

 

[Rampantchilli]

Dont know where your assessor is at TBH.....anything which doesnt comply with 7671 should be coded,and a live conductor not properly identified doesnt comply with 7671 and should be coded.

have you read the guide?
ESC Best Practice Guide No.4 Issue 3

its clearly stated in there.

i dont make the rules, i follow them.

 

[C&H]

can anyone quote the regulation number which states neutrals and cpcs must be connected in corresponding terminals?

 

[D Skelton]

can anyone quote the regulation number which states neutrals and cpcs must be connected in corresponding terminals?

I haven't got my BGB to hand but from memory it's in section 514.3

 

[telectrix]

and 514.1.2 comes into mind.

 

[C&H]

can't see it mate, i stand to be corrected but i don't think its in BS7671. its bad practice not connecting them in sequence but if it's not in the regs you can't list it as a coded defect

 

[telectrix]

read 514.1.2 then . " wiring shall be arranged or marked so that it can be identified..........."

 

[D Skelton]

can't see it mate, i stand to be corrected but i don't think its in BS7671. its bad practice not connecting them in sequence but if it's not in the regs you can't list it as a coded defect

Again, not sure on the exact reg number but all conductors need to be identified, this can be done by colour or number.

I would interpret this to mean that not only do you need to identify line, neutral, cpc, L1, L2 and L3 but also what they do. Hence the numbered terminations in DBs.

 

[C&H]

yea they def have to be correctly colour coded, and correctly numbered if part of a multicore cable but i can't see where BS7671 says nuetrals and earths should be connected into corresponding terminals in a dist board

 

[Silly Sausage]

As Tel has already pointed out...
read 514.1.2 then . " wiring shall be arranged or marked so that it can be identified..........."
which would mean nuetrals and earths should be connected into corresponding terminals.

I think that Ns & Es should be numbered to match the Line conductors, eliminate any confusion.

 

[robsparky1975]

Have to agree thats it a C3,and for the OP whats he going to do in this situation,his call but what would any of us do in this instance considering he may be on a fixed quote for carrying out the EICR,one possiblity would be have a word with the client and explain the issues concerning the DB ie,neutrals/cpcs all mixed up and unable to correspond with exact circuit they are on,if they want to put limitations on that DB and have the wiring put down as remedial works then test it afterwards then its their call.

 

[11kstanton]

I would explain to the customer about maintenance issues that may occur in the future if it is not rectified and would say its a c3 .
Just stick a label on the DB "neutrals and cpc's not in sequential order" if they don't want to pay out for remedial works which in the long run could cost them more for having to solve the problem further down the line