Eicr

[Platinum lad]

Hey guys quick question regarding eicr's,if you inspected a property 30 years old with no rcd protection downstairs would you put this down as a code 3?i would have done as a realise regs aren't retrospective, bit confused as good practice guide states a c2 hence a fail?also bathrooms if lighting circuit isn't rcd protected and no cross bonding in place would this also be a c2? Any replies appreciated

 

[telectrix]

C2 if sockets are for outside use. also C2 if no supp. bonding in bathroom. otherwise a C3.

 

[Platinum lad]

Thanks tel so to clarify if cct in bathroom is un rcd protected due to age of install and no cross bonding is evident it would be an unsatisfactory c2?

 

[somersetsparks]

Thanks tel so to clarify if cct in bathroom is un rcd protected due to age of install and no cross bonding is evident it would be an unsatisfactory c2?

Yes that's correct, it could be rectified by stringing around a bit of 4mm!

 

[chrish_1977]

Correct, however it doesn't fail as such just doesn't meet the current regs, and you can't make customers have work done either

 

[Platinum lad]

Granted but it would still be an unsatisfactory result and as far as certification purposes are concerned it would stay unsatisfactory until said 4mm cable was string around or rcd protection installed?

 

[somersetsparks]

Granted but it would still be an unsatisfactory result and as far as certification purposes are concerned it would stay unsatisfactory until said 4mm cable was string around or rcd protection installed?

Yep unsatisfactory

 

[Platinum lad]

Cheers lads

 

[D Skelton]

Thanks tel so to clarify if cct in bathroom is un rcd protected due to age of install and no cross bonding is evident it would be an unsatisfactory c2?

Don't forget supplementary bonding may not be needed in the bathroom so don't just go C2ing every bathroom you see without RCD protection and supp bonding, you need to test!

 

[Platinum lad]

Can you elaborate Skelton?

 

[D Skelton]

If the resistance between simultaneously accessible exposed conductive parts, extraneous conductive parts and exposed and extraneous conductive parts is equal to or less than 50/In then supplementary bonding is not needed is it.

 

[somersetsparks]

Can you elaborate Skelton?

Basically to achieve what dave is saying you need to make sure that the resistance between all simultaneously accessible exposed conductive parts, extraneous conductive parts and exposed and extraneous conductive parts is less then or equal to 0.05 ohms.

 

[D Skelton]

0.05 ohms.

That's the recommended minimum value for main bonding bud

 

[somersetsparks]

I may be wrong, but I believe that if you cannot locate supplementary bonding but a test shows below 0.05 between all partd it can be presumed that it is bonded?

 

[D Skelton]

Yes, if you test between parts and it is 0.05 or less then you could easily presume that either supp or main bonding is present, but that's beside the point. You only need supp bonding if testing between simultaniously accessible exp, ext and exp + ext conductive parts confirms results higher than 50/In.

 

[somersetsparks]

you are correct Dave, I was looking at it from a slightly different angle

 

[D Skelton]

Dave

Damian

 

[somersetsparks]

Damian

Hahaha sorry mate, funny how I assumed D was for dave without realsing it! I'll stick to calling you 'skelton' like the OP then!

 

[D Skelton]

Hahaha sorry mate, funny how I assumed D was for dave without realsing it! I'll stick to calling you 'skelton' like the OP then!

Lol, don't worry about it, everyone here assumes it's Dave haha, you're not the first

 

[Stroppy]

Are you sure? I could have sworn you were a Dave.