EICR Codes

[Julie.]

Yes, and I would note the observation, but for me I would be unlikely to code it, if you would wish to then fine, no issue with that.

Dot see why you are getting upset.

Opinions vary.

Non compliance does not mandate a code, the risk/danger level does.

But anyone is free to code as they see fit, under the existing system, there is no standard (unlike mots and so on) hence why eicrs are so varied in quality.

 

[brianmoooore]

Is there any evidence that this cable is NOT in a duct?

 

[westward10]

Yes, and I would note the observation, but for me I would be unlikely to code it, if you would wish to then fine, no issue with that.

Dot see why you are getting upset.

Opinions vary.

Non compliance does not mandate a code, the risk/danger level does.

But anyone is free to code as they see fit, under the existing system, there is no standard (unlike mots and so on) hence why eicrs are so varied in quality.

No one is upset here just pointing the OP in the right direction.

 

[mattg4321]

Is there any evidence that this cable is NOT in a duct?

Yes, the fact that I can see it disappearing into the ground with no sign of a duct, even after digging out a small amount of ground around it!!

 

[DefyG]

Yes, the fact that I can see it disappearing into the ground with no sign of a duct, even after digging out a small amount of ground around it!!

To establish if it is in a duct or deep enough to be unlikely to damaged by a garden fork maybe it should be an FI (Further Investigation)!

 

[loz2754]

To establish if it is in a duct or deep enough to be unlikely to damaged by a garden fork maybe it should be an FI (Further Investigation)!

If it was in a duct, it would have to be ducted all the way up to the surface, therefore no further investigation necessary.

 

[Julie.]

If it was in a duct, it would have to be ducted all the way up to the surface, therefore no further investigation necessary.

Agree.

It would be reasonable to assume no duct at any point if it doesn't have a duct at the points you inspect, as it's a simple exists/doesn't exist thing.

The decision on code is completely up to the inspector, the napit book and the safety first guide present guidance for directions based on level of danger, but they don't agree in many cases, and of course don't cover everything.

Until there is a proper mandated assessment and maintenance of standards for inspectors - just like driving test examiners, or mot assessors then there actually is no absolute right or wrong.

The best is to follow the principles outlined in the napit guide and gn3.

 

[DefyG]

I think the OP has established there isn't a duct but only after already carrying out Further Investigation by digging down some!

 

[mattg4321]

Now that we have that subject well and truly covered, what about a TT installation with Ze of 1000ohms, tested in the middle of summer. Rod and connection etc looking in good condition.

Theoretically a 30ma RCD still disconnects, but I’m not sure I’d be happy with no code.

Not a problem I ever expect to come across round here though. It’s usually pretty easy to get well under 50ohms with even one rod. Usually more like 10-20ohms.

 

[Julie.]

Now that we have that subject well and truly covered, what about a TT installation with Ze of 1000ohms, tested in the middle of summer. Rod and connection etc looking in good condition.

Theoretically a 30ma RCD still disconnects, but I’m not sure I’d be happy with no code.

Not a problem I ever expect to come across round here though. It’s usually pretty easy to get well under 50ohms with even one rod. Usually more like 10-20ohms.

I wouldn't either, I would definitely go C2.

It's when it's borderline on 200~400 ohm I would go C3 , less than that no code.