EICR - PLASTIC CONSUMER UNIT CODE C2 or C3

[Nigel]

I think they purposely leave things extremely vague, so no one can quote them. After all, they have a lovely section on Definitions; all they got to do is add to it.

I agree and poor Standards not written in plain English led to Grendfell.

I would have liked to have thought things would change.

 

[Midwest]

I agree to a certain extent but if it was just black or white then no skill would be required.

I don't think ones skills above others should come into it. It's accessing an installations condition, not how more skilful you are at doing over someone else, or am I judging you incorrectly (see what I did there!).

 

[Spoon]

I think both could be argued but why would they suddenly change what they refer to as dwellings to accommodation. Now if they have changed all references to dwellings to accommodation then I am on your bus. I will have to check.

They have changed for wording for 'competent' to 'skilled' if I remember correctly...

 

[Nigel]

They have changed for wording for 'competent' to 'skilled' if I remember correctly...

Equally as meaningless.

 

[Spoon]

Equally as meaningless.

Was just trying to point out that they have changed wording in the past mate.... That's all.

 

[mattg4321]

This post is a complete contradiction.

How is it a 'complete contradiction'? I said anyone who codes a C2 is a chancer. I have never coded C2 for this reason. I may code C3 in the right circumstances, however that has very rarely happened.

 

[Octopus]

Fingers crossed that one of the recommendations that will come out of the tragedy of Grenfell, will be to put far greater emphasis, and responsibility on people writing regulations to make them far less open to interpretation.

The DCLG are key to the ambiguity of the current building regulations and have been extremely quiet for the last year or so.

 

[johnduffell]

One day there will be a phone app, and you'll just take a photo of everything then it will connect to the servers and print out a full inspection report for you. Then you just need to do the testing and there will be a fully standard eicr with no room for argument (waiting for the optimistic rating there!)

 

[Andy78]

One day there will be a phone app, and you'll just take a photo of everything then it will connect to the servers and print out a full inspection report for you. Then you just need to do the testing and there will be a fully standard eicr with no room for argument (waiting for the optimistic rating there!)

Or you could use the equivalent system already in place. Use your training and experience to make a judgement on site, take a photo to prove your findings, and digitally attach it to your report using your certification software.

 

[Octopus]

One day there will be a phone app, and you'll just take a photo of everything then it will connect to the servers and print out a full inspection report for you. Then you just need to do the testing and there will be a fully standard eicr with no room for argument (waiting for the optimistic rating there!)

Not an optomistic ........... a straight disagree.

 

[johnduffell]

Not an optomistic ........... a straight disagree.

Someone has to think big, Steve Jobs didn't innovate by following the old rules!
Anyway I've given you a friendly because you explained it's your opinion

 

[johnduffell]

Or you could use the equivalent system already in place. Use your training and experience to make a judgement on site, take a photo to prove your findings, and digitally attach it to your report using your certification software.

True well that's the current system, in that post i was addressing the op issue as this whole thread seemed to have ended up about inconsistent opinions and how to get clarity on which is correct, what better way to get consistency than with a deterministic process.

 

[Octopus]

One day there will be a crystal ball app, and you'll just take a photo of everything then it will connect to the servers and print out a full inspection report for you. Then you just need to do the testing and there will be a fully standard eicr with no room for argument (waiting for the optimistic rating there!)

edited that for you

I think this has already been invented - loads of low cost EICR's are produced like this every day

 

[johnduffell]

I think this has already been invented - loads of low cost EICR's are produced like this every day

Except without the benefit of an app, just a blank sheet of paper and a bit of imagination!

 

[ipf]

My post is my personal opinion. I do not do EICR's so it doesn't affect anyone really. Just shocked to think that anyone would even consider giving a CU a C2 just because it's plastic.

I gave one a Code 1.....definitely!

Mind you...….there was a great big 3'' hole melted out the front of it.

 

[Baker1988]

Well this has been a very fun thread to read but here is my 2 cents on this.
I would personally not code a plastic consumer unit just for been plastic but i would code it a c3 of it was under wooden stairs with no fire protection or was in the only escape route.
A c3 does not say that its is dangerous and it still gets a satifactory but it brings to light that it could be improved which a metal one installed correctly would do.
And to those that are saying that the board was not dangerous when it was installed and was the norm yes it may be but pre 1966 the norm was to install lighting circuits with no cpc but that today is classed as dangerous and would probily get a c2 but back then it was fine. Times change and so do the regs.
Just to be clear im im not saying it dangerous at all but doesnt mean it cant be improved upon as the regs are only a minimum standard too so surely there is some room for improvement.

 

[johnduffell]

1966 the norm was to install lighting circuits with no cpc but that today is classed as dangerous and would probily get a c2 but back then it was fine

Would it really? If there are exposed conductive parts with no earth, certainly, but if everything is plastic then it wouldn't be any more dangerous than any other class II equipment.
Of course any more recent modifications would be c2 as they couldn't be added without RCD protection and cpc.

 

[Nigel]

What I fail to understand in this thread are those that say it is a C2 under stairs and a C3 elsewhere or a C3 understairs and a no code elsewhere.

The intent of the Reg is to limit the spread of fire if it should occur. When did we start putting gradings on electrical fires? So are thise that would code this way saying it is ok to have an electrical fire in a kitchen but not under the stairs?

Do the same people code a C2 if a cable is undersized under the stairs but only a C3 if the cables are in the lounge?

 

[DC-backfrom the past]

This is the type of problem I sometimes face .
A landlord will get an EICR with several faults thereon by local authority electrician.
Ive had several jobs "rectifying the EICR fault list"
on two occasions they have marked plastic consumer units under stairs as C2 .
When challenged they have agreed its not c2 solely because of location and being plastic. a supervisor has then stated it was an error and put it as c3.
I suspect that this is sometimes coded this way(by the council) to make sure the system is fully updated IE new consumer unit.

Also, I think sometimes people, through fear of being wrong and ending up in court, just code things .. more dangerous to cover their own back.
Whilst some seem to look at it as …"its like an mot "..only worth the paper it was written on ...on the day of testing. (hence the people doing it for very cheap prices).

I have enjoyed and learned a lot by challenging some of the EICR codes put down by the council electricians.
On occasions its been due to reading some of the posts and answers to problems on here and verifying via guidance notes etc.

The debates on here are good, helpful and thought provoking .sometimes funny
keep it up

 

[Baker1988]

Would it really? If there are exposed conductive parts with no earth, certainly, but if everything is plastic then it wouldn't be any more dangerous than any other class II equipment.
Of course any more recent modifications would be c2 as they couldn't be added without RCD protection and cpc.

Thats why I said "probably" as you say if all was class 2/plastic fittings then in the event of a fault it wouldn't be come dangerous so would not be a code 2 but would certainly be a code 3 still as improvement would be beneficial and as the regs say they needs to be a cpc at each point but at the time of installing it it was the way to do it but not now.