EICR codes again earths to double ins fittings

[andyyoyo]

Just been to an inspection today, as with many of them its suffering from a bit of DIY, bathroom downlights are above 225, so are out of zones, but are not IP rated, so I will probably give them a C3 ? They are double insulated but the earths have been nicely snipped out so are discontinuous & unterminated, so maybe a C2?
I'm still taking far too long with the new forms, is it just me? maybe I'm becoming an old stick in the mud.

 

[ample current]

i thought if they were out of zones they did not have to be IP rated, although prefered.

 

[andyyoyo]

Exactly, but I still think maybe it warrants some mention as these are open GU10s, thats why I was thinking of using a C3

 

[Guest 004]

surely just a code 4?

 

[andyyoyo]

Er, wot code 4 didnt think they exist anymore

 

[Guest 004]

oh really, been away for a while

 

[andyyoyo]

We are on the 19th edition now I think

 

[Guest 004]

We are on the 19th edition now I think

oh and that came out this morning did it?

 

[Guest 004]

Lets wait for the big boys reply

 

[rich.250]

You could recommend improvement c3,
But that's your professional opinion. No supporting regulations.

As for the lack of CPC continuity, my code would depend on If it has RCD protection or supplementary bonding to provide protection for bathroom.

 

[rich.250]

I don't think the new forms take any longer than a detailed pir now I'm used to the forms

 

[needasparks]

Think similar question was answered earlier, Just because they are out of the zone does not mean they are suitable for their location.
steam and moisture tends not to know the regs and goes where it likes.

 

[Des 56]

The fittings have to be suitable for the environment

In a bathroom I dont believe open lamp downlighters are suitable
Aside from moisture penetration,there is danger of injury should the lamp glass shatter,especialy,if like me the user tramps about barefoot

 

[Guest 004]

code 3 requires improvement, either by bonding or RCD protection

 

[andyyoyo]

No RCD, but I was going to recommend RCBOs for the lighting circuits anyway. No visible supplimentary bonding, but there is continuity at pipework etc.

 

[truckster]

If theres no earth continuity I would go C2.

BTW I love the new forms, makes it easy to get everything, no more having to remember it all.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Hate the EICR's at the moment...filling in one today on NIC software...section F,about 60 odd defects...then when you get to the tick box section you have to reference every one to defects in section F...constantly flicking back and trawling through all the defects....:cuss:

 

[plugsandsparks]

Regarding DI fittings, which are becoming more and more prevalent. I struggle between the two options of C2 and C3 mainly because. There is no danger present and there wont be if DA fittings remain, so for it to become dangerous there would need to be a change of fitting to class1 and however fitted it left the earths off, also a C2 tends to lead to an un-satisfactory condition. The problem with C3 is that its worded as a recommendation which i suppose is probably nearer to its actual real danger potential. As its relativly inexpensive to terminate them on a choc block and test continuity and there is some way to explain to the client that it is needed for the future then its easier to justify a C2. I do wish though that the suppliers of these lights create a term position for earth continuity would make life so much easier for DIYers and Electricians

 

[invisable]

the coding would be a code C3 as long as the lights are all class 2 and switches are all on plastic back boxes so plate screws cant become live. But I would make it clear on your test sheet or use addition sheet to clearly explain the dangers would increase if class 2 fittings were changed.

After all you can only report on the installation at its current state.

If you are in doubt ring NIC or ECA techinical (or whoever you pay your money to).