High Zs values (Just)

[Deleted member 9648]

I have bowed to the inevitable and issued the EICR with a code 2 for the high Zs. While I still do not agree I've no doubt the NIC will say a code 2 and that seems to be the majority view on here. Remedial will only involve changing a type C for a B, which will no doubt prompt comments about why bother making a fuss. Well I like coding to be correct and justified on my reports regardless of the cost of rectification.

 

[Richard Burns]

I think you are taking the correct action in both cases, code 2 for the New World Order, and feeling that you do not agree but want to get things correct and justified.
The risk assessment would say
Hazard: long disconnection time
Likelihood: 0.0001%, low 1,
Effect: death, high 5.
Risk assessment overall 5, low risk, no action to take, no control measures required.
Overruled by IET random thoughts.
Full control measures to be implemented.

 

[Nigel]

I'm not going to argue with anyone who advocates a code 2. That's an interpretation which can be justified. But my interpretation is that a compliant circuit is not safe one day and potentially dangerous the next simply because some boff playing with figures moves the goalposts to justify his existence.
However as already stated I will discuss the issue with my NICEIC inspector on his next visit and if he thinks a code 2 is appropriate then that's what I'll do in future...…(through gritted teeth mind you)

Why don’t you stick by your guns if you are so certain? What is it about your NICEIC Inspector that you respect so much?

If I was certain of ny stance I would be telling the NICEIC what I am doing not asking them if I can.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Mostly because inconsistencies in coding is an issue for recipients of EICR's. I think consensus and following established guidelines is important for an EICR to be credible, the worst EICR's I have seen are where the inspector has applied his own prejudices. I recall one where neutrals in a switch box had been given a code 2.