EICR Codes

[mattg4321]

Sorry, this again.

Normally I don't ask, but just want opinions on whether my thinking is in line with the majority on these observations I've not come across in a while.

1.
TT system. Ze: 340ohms. Code 2. Question is, what would you define the cutoff point between no code, code 3 and code 2. Personally a code 3 would be not for the result, but if I thought the cable/rod/joint could be protected better etc. Code 2 if Ze higher than 200ohms or significantly higher than I have reason to believe it 'should' be. Is 200ohms the correct figure, and anything above this code 2?

2.
NYY-J/Hi-tuf buried direct in garden to shed. Unknown depth. RCD protected. Leaning towards Code 3 here, but expect some would go Code 2

3.
MICC from suppliers cutout in loft to suppliers cutout under stairs. The pot is visible above the cutout in the loft, with 'basic insulation' visible. FI - with UKPN to further investigate.

4.
Lighting has no cpc within the cable. All Class 2 fittings and plastic switches. Some metal KO boxes are fitted in the wall behind switches. Code 2. Would change to Code 3 if nylon screws fitted.

Cheers

 

[Julie.]

Personally I would go
1.
Depends when you measured, following a dry period, or hard frost ~340ohm is probably the highest it would get, and as the RCD does continue to protect - C3. However if it's like now, when the ground is wet etc. then in a dry period it could go well above this value, and may not be properly protected by a RCD, so C2

2.
NYY-J/Hi-tuf buried direct in garden to shed. Unknown depth. RCD protected.

Not sure I would code it, it has fairly good protection against mechanical damage, and RCD protection, so although could be damaged by spikes/shovels it's suitably protected anyhow.

3.
MICC from suppliers cutout in loft to suppliers cutout under stairs. The pot is visible above the cutout in the loft, with 'basic insulation' visible. FI - with UKPN to further investigate.

If the basic insulation is for the live conductors (and not just the outer sheath of the pyro) - I would agree with FI, the utility could come back with it's reinforced insulation - so it's OK, a second layer isn't always required so can't C2 it as no second layer, you just don't know

4.
Lighting has no cpc within the cable. All Class 2 fittings and plastic switches. Some metal KO boxes are fitted in the wall behind switches. Code 2. Would change to Code 3 if nylon screws fitted.

I would go with C3, contact cannot cause the person to grip the screw, so although a shock is possible - assuming RCD present it wouldn't warrant a C2 for me

 

[mattg4321]

You make some good points.

Test was today. Ground saturated. Zs on circuits 100ohms less than Ze at rod so clearly better is easily achieveable! Clear C2

Not sure I can agree on point 4. Are we saying a shock isn't potentially dangerous if the contact area is small and we can't grip it?

Not coding point 2 implies that it is installed in accordance with the regulations. I'm sure NYY/Hi-tuf isn't suitable for direct burial?

 

[Deleted account]

Ditto. agree with @Julie. above.

 

[Deleted account]

Not coding point 2 implies that it is installed in accordance with the regulations. I'm sure NYY/Hi-tuf isn't suitable for direct burial?

not suitable does not nesassarily mean potentially dangerous Or even improvement recommended. But if you think it is I wouldn’t argue with your opinion. You have a better understanding of what you see As you are the inspector.

 

[mattg4321]

All good points.

Just been thinking about whether something could be 'not suitable for the job', but at the same time attract no code.

 

[Deleted account]

All good points.

Just been thinking about whether something could be 'not suitable for the job', but at the same time attract no code.

For me I see the observations as not just for C1, C2 , C3 & FI. I also do no code observations. You can code this issue if you wish or if you chose not to but feel you want to make an observation, do so.

 

[Julie.]

You make some good points.

Test was today. Ground saturated. Zs on circuits 100ohms less than Ze at rod so clearly better is easily achieveable! Clear C2

Not sure I can agree on point 4. Are we saying a shock isn't potentially dangerous if the contact area is small and we can't grip it?

Not coding point 2 implies that it is installed in accordance with the regulations. I'm sure NYY/Hi-tuf isn't suitable for direct burial?

Not saying a shock isn't an issue, just that the likelyhood and consequence is low, we are not inundated with reports of big issues with this sort of thing, so I wouldn't consider it worth raising above C3, of course other opinions are valid.

Not coding something doesn't imply it is compliant with regulations, red and black wiring is not compliant, but you wouldn't code an older property as needing resolving (C1...C3) because the cable colours are wrong, that's my take here - it may not be my cable of choice, (I don't actually like it btw), but it doesn't represent a danger so I wouldn't code it at all - if there was no RCD that would be different.

EDIT
More comments added whilst I was typing, and agree I may make mention of observations that doesn't result in a code. Often as an explanation as to why no code - For example many automatically assume overload protection MUST be applied to a cable via the MCB feeding it, so if I don't code it I would explain why - "fixed load [ or local motor protection etc] therefore overload protection not required, MCB providing Fault current protection only" sort of thing

 

[Julie.]

You make some good points.

Test was today. Ground saturated. Zs on circuits 100ohms less than Ze at rod so clearly better is easily achieveable! Clear C2

...

Just watching this for a laugh

20:38 may be relevant (and too funny - there may be something wrong with me here!)

 

[Deleted account]

I wander if that’s gets through the forum sensors.

 

[Julie.]

I wander if that’s gets through the forum sensors.

did you look at 20:38 onwards for the full picture?

 

[Deleted account]

did you look at 20:38 onwards for the full picture?

Haven’t watched it all but caught the doll at beginning and ----- half way through.

a few members will be watching this now ive mentioned the -----.

 

[Julie.]

Haven’t watched it all but caught the doll at beginning and ----- half way through.

a few members will be watching this now ive mentioned the -----.

Yeah, I laughed at the same points, probably more than I should have...

 

[westward10]

NYY-J cables are manufactured for direct burial in the ground however to comply with BS7671 they must be protected by a duct or conduit. The only type of cable suitable for direct burial according to BS7671 is a cable which incorporates an earthed armour or metal sheath. So your method of installation is not compliant, see Regulation 522.8.10.

 

[Julie.]

NYY-J cables are manufactured for direct burial in the ground however to comply with BS7671 they must be protected by a duct or conduit. The only type of cable suitable for direct burial according to BS7671 is a cable which incorporates an earthed armour or metal sheath. So your method of installation is not compliant, see Regulation 522.8.10.

I am not sure anyone is saying it is compliant.

 

[westward10]

I know but in #2 you say you weren't sure if you would Code it when it is a non-compliant means of installation.

 

[Julie.]

I know but in #2 you say you wouldn't Code it when it is a non-compliant means of installation.

Correct.

Nor would I code other things because they are non-compliant, I would code them if they represented an immediate danger, a potential danger, or a recommended improvement (Or FI etc).

There isn't a requirement or option on an EICR for "not compliant" nor should there be.

Old wiring colours are non-compliant but Prima facie I wouldn't code that, Plastic CU again isn't compliant, but again in-itself I wouldn't automatically code that, and so on.

The idea of a periodic report is to make a qualified assessment if the installation is safe/suitable. That doesn't mean it has to be 100% compliant with the latest regulations.

As said earlier on in the thread, the same item, given no RCD protection would attract a different code.

 

[westward10]

I agree the new Coding system is poor the old Catergories were better. Having said that the cable is not installed in compliance with BS7671 and comparing it with old conductor colours and all insulated consumer units isn't relevant, that is a case of a previous compliance no longer satisfying current requirements. This cable installation has never been compliant, the fact it has rcd protection is irrelevant.

 

[Julie.]

I agree the new Coding system is poor the old Catergories were better. Having said that the cable is not installed in compliance with BS7671 and comparing it with old conductor colours and all insulated consumer units isn't relevant, that is a case of a previous compliance no longer satisfying current requirements. This cable installation has never been compliant, the fact it has rcd protection is irrelevant.

I would disagree, how safe or unsafe something is isn't contingent on whether is was compliant or not previously, but wholly on does it or does it not present a danger.

Having or not having rcd protection changes this significantly.

 

[westward10]

Does it present a danger or not well we cannot anticipate that but following the requirements of BS7671 we would hope this danger is significantly reduced which is why EICRs are carried out. Item 5.9 of the condition report inspection schedule is relevant here asking whether wiring systems are appropriate etc......
Regulation 522.8.10 clearly states that unless a cable has an earthed armour or sheath then additional precautions are required such as duct or conduit, it does not suggest rcd protection as an alternative therefore some level of Coding in the Report is required.

 

[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.