Discuss EICR coding twin and earth tails/riser in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Reaction score
55
Not unusual in townhouses that have been converted into flats round here to see all the meters in the basement, each feeding a switched fuse spur that then feeds 16mm T+E to each flat. Obviously that's a run of tens of metres, concealed in walls etc with no RCD protection.

Guessing it was correct to some edition of the regs, code to C3?
 
if there is a perceived danger of nails or screws being stuck in the walls and hence into the cable, it's a C2 in my book.
 
If you see the first one whilst you're there, C.2
If you see the second, just laugh and walk away, no risk there.

EICR coding twin and earth tails/riser 1608143294884 - EletriciansForums.net



EICR coding twin and earth tails/riser 1608143414047 - EletriciansForums.net
 
I guess you can't know the cable routes and depth, but 522.6.202 only applies if they're buried less than 50mm from the surface doesn't it? The 3m rule only applies to tails from DNO equipment I think (434.2.1), which your switched fused spur isn't.
 
it's a good question - do you code to current regs, or the regs at the time of installation?

I'm sure many things were considered compliant at the time they were installed, but would not be under current regs (eg: plastic CUs, sockets and lighting circuits without 30mA RCD protection, etc).
 
The perpetual question surely? Can we say everything not up to 18th is UNSATISFACTORY ?
It should come down to the level of danger it presents, not what edition it was/was not allowed under.

The reality is many things that are now mandated by the 18th are not significant risk normally so should be C3, but there will be cases when you see stuff that is plain stupid and a risk even if it is not specifically mentioned in the regs (though over the years they seem to grow and grow as 'stupid' is found).

So a non-RCD cable run up some entrance hall that is unlikely to ever have shelves or pictures nailed up is possibly a C2, but same cable in a kitchen/bathroom where DIY shelving is very likely (or outdoors, etc) should be a C2.

In my book at least, not that anyone reads it...
 
it's so simple. you code to current regs. the codes are simple.. C3 for recommended improvement/not to current regs., but no immediate or potential danger. if either danger exists it's C1 or C2. clear as mud day
 
Unfortunately, there's a large discretionary element to EICRs.

I look after a very large installation that's been maintained and extended since the 1950s. Even though I'm experienced, qualified and capable of doing the testing myself, because I'm not a CPS member I was at the mercy of and ended up negotiating with the electrician we hired to do the last EICR.

I'll give one example (from many). The kitchen was renovated in 1981 under god-knows-what edition. It's all surface-mount electrics with singles in PVC conduit. The kitchen itself is barely used and has a kettle, a microwave and a few fridge freezers. No-one plugs anything in in there and it's lightly used.

The electrician doing the EICR wouldn't deem that kitchen satisfactory unless every socket outlet was replaced with one that was 30mA RCD enabled (despite every socket meeting the Zs requirement for 0.4s disconnection and then some). He also coded everything C3 quoting the 50mm buried reg 522.6.202 despite the fact that none of the cables are buried! The kitchen sockets are also never used to power outdoor or mobile equipment. I basically had to replace 15 socket outlets with RCD enabled ones to get a satisfactory EICR for that room and hiring someone else to start again on the installation would have been prohibitively expensive (we'd already paid 2 grand for the condition report to this point).

He only agreed to replacing outlets as a compromise after I used BPG4 to argue my case - before that, he was insisting on unnecessarily replacing the 1970s 3 phase board that served that room (that tested completely fine and only served surface mounted electrics in that room and another room) with something new at a cost of 3 grand.

This is one example from many and I'm not saying that the electrician himself was a bad person or doing something wrong, what I'm saying is that BS7671 is not clear enough on how EICR codes are applied. Instead, there's conflicting advice from NICEIC, NAPIT and ESF and electricians are put on the spot and told to use their initiative.

I think something like ESF BPG4 should be incorporated into the regs section 6 to stop future arguments over condition report codings. I know they can't cover every eventuality, but there's a shitload of basic, standard stuff that everyone sees that they could cover.

Sorry, rambling on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It should come down to the level of danger it presents, not what edition it was/was not allowed under.

The reality is many things that are now mandated by the 18th are not significant risk normally so should be C3, but there will be cases when you see stuff that is plain stupid and a risk even if it is not specifically mentioned in the regs (though over the years they seem to grow and grow as 'stupid' is found).

So a non-RCD cable run up some entrance hall that is unlikely to ever have shelves or pictures nailed up is possibly a C2, but same cable in a kitchen/bathroom where DIY shelving is very likely (or outdoors, etc) should be a C2.

In my book at least, not that anyone reads it...
I totally agree with @pc1966 on this.
As I have said in several threads on the subject of EICR coding, the Best Practice Guide, Napit Codebreakers and such, are just that. Guides.
The inspector is the one signing the report, and he is the one responsible for making the judgement as to the potential for danger, and what code should be given. Having said that, the guides are very useful in assisting one to make that judgement. As is this excellent forum.
 
What difference does the edition it was designed to have?
Ok my reasoning is this.

If the electrical installation was installed after a regulation that was brought in as an improvement to safety, that regulation was not adhered to and I feel the regulation does prevent a potential danger then I would code 2 it. So my coding is based more to do with a new regulation not be adhered to as opossed to a specific regulation.
 
Ok my reasoning is this.

If the electrical installation was installed after a regulation that was brought in as an improvement to safety, that regulation was not adhered to and I feel the regulation does prevent a potential danger then I would code 2 it. So my coding is based more to do with a new regulation not be adhered to as opossed to a specific regulation.

But how would you know when each part of an installation was installed?
 
The level of danger is still present regardless of what edition it was installed to.
Fused neutrals where once a thing, they would certainly warrant a C2 code regardless of what edition it was installed to.
The question is do the cables present a potential danger with how they are installed or do they mearly require improvement only?
16th edition installed, 17th edition installed, makes absolutely zero difference, they are still buried directly in a wall.
 
The issue though is that "level of danger" is subjective... it cannot be accurately defined. You could argue that stepping outside of your front door presents a level of danger (being run-over, meeting a mass murderer etc.) that is unacceptable, so you shouldn't do/legislate against doing it. Or you could argue that staying indoors is more dangerous as we are told that most accidents happen at home...

Also the level of what is deemed to be "dangerous" decreases year on year... e.g. driving without a seatbelt on was perfectly acceptable 30 years ago... now it's been made illegal.

As has already been said... under the current regime, whether you code as a C2 or C3 is often a matter of the personal opinion of the inspector given his attitude to risk, understanding of the regulations and his age.
 

Reply to EICR coding twin and earth tails/riser in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
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
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock