LIM N/V FI codes?

[ppelec100]

Hi just a quick one, I know some might say it’s pretty self explanatory but I want to get a few ideas.

What are the differences with the eicr codes and when would one be more suitable than the other.

I know c1 is immediate danger things like gaping hole in consumer units where you can reach the busbar, live terminal if socket busted open and you can touch it..
C2 is if it would be a danger if a fault occurred like no cpc to class 1 fittings
C3 recommended improvement like labels not on CU or no Rcd if install is older than when it was a reg

what about when it comes to LIM and N/V? Say for cables concealed in walls/ceilings or things you can’t see or access etc would you be more inclined to put LIM because you’re limited to access etc or N/V because it wasn’t able to be verified? I’m going to guess LIM because you verified some but limited to how much you could inspect? Do you note down for every single LIM code that you couldn’t access? Because I can see there being a lot of notes because of this

Also FI… this is only used when you have no access to the rest of that circuit which seems to be problematic right? Like if theres no end to end continuity on a ring and part of the ring is in a locked room

 

[buzzlightyear]

Because you can't see it, so N/V.

 

[ppelec100]

Because you can't see it, so N/V.

Okay thank you. So in what different scenarios would LIM supersede N/V? I’m a bit cautious of which one to put over the over to cover myself and get it right.

I’m going to say LIM when you can’t test something because of limited access such as not being able to get into a room or can’t move furniture out of the way and also if you can’t remove an accessory as it will damage the finishing or fabric of the building? Any other reasons you can suggest?

 

[buzzlightyear]

When an electrician encounters a situation where they cannot properly test a circuit or component due to limitations in access or other factors, they will mark it as "N/V" (Not Verified) and note "LIM" (Limitation) on the report to explain why the full inspection couldn't be done.

 

[ppelec100]

When an electrician encounters a situation where they cannot properly test a circuit or component due to limitations in access or other factors, they will mark it as "N/V" (Not Verified) and note "LIM" (Limitation) on the report to explain why the full inspection couldn't be done.

When you say mark it N/V and note LIM do you mean N/V on the schedule of test results boxes and LIM on the inspection schedules sheets?

 

[ppelec100]

Also, for 5.17 on the inspection schedules sheet, I did a sample the sockets and most connections were alright there were a few that had loose connections and the conductors popped straight out when I took the face plate off.
Now I’m a little bit stuck on what to code this, because I’ve fixed it it would be no code but I’m inclined to put c2 for before I reterminated. I don’t feel comfortable ticking it as there will most likely be more shody connections but I might be there all day taking off faceplates when it’s a report not fault find…? Where do you draw the line?

 

[buzzlightyear]

Napit book about coding is worth getting.

 

[James]

Also, for 5.17 on the inspection schedules sheet, I did a sample the sockets and most connections were alright there were a few that had loose connections and the conductors popped straight out when I took the face plate off.
Now I’m a little bit stuck on what to code this, because I’ve fixed it it would be no code but I’m inclined to put c2 for before I reterminated. I don’t feel comfortable ticking it as there will most likely be more shody connections but I might be there all day taking off faceplates when it’s a report not fault find…? Where do you draw the line?

The Principal behind say 50% sampling of sockets on a circuit is the assumption that if you don't find any faults, the rest should be ok as they were installed at the same time to the same standard.

in an ideal world, the next time you did it, you would sample the other 50%
however, in my opinion if you find a fault with any one socket on the circuit, you should then check ALL the others for a similar fault.
after all, you cant say that all the ones you checked were fine therefore the rest are likely to be ok.
if you check 10 out of 20 and find 2 faults, then it is statistically likely that there are 2 faults hiding in the ones you have not checked.

 

[ppelec100]

Napit book about coding is worth getting.

I have got it I’ve been through it once already I’m going through it again comparing it with the codes I’ve given, some match, some are not far off.

 

[ppelec100]

The Principal behind say 50% sampling of sockets on a circuit is the assumption that if you don't find any faults, the rest should be ok as they were installed at the same time to the same standard.

in an ideal world, the next time you did it, you would sample the other 50%
however, in my opinion if you find a fault with any one socket on the circuit, you should then check ALL the others for a similar fault.
after all, you cant say that all the ones you checked were fine therefore the rest are likely to be ok.
if you check 10 out of 20 and find 2 faults, then it is statistically likely that there are 2 faults hiding in the ones you have not checked.

Yeah that makes sense, I’m just wondering how do you cover yourself for money/time/pricing when it comes to an eicr where there loads of sockets?
Like say there was 40 sockets and you sampled like 10 and and there was about 5 bad connections. You then have to undo 30 more and reterminate any bad ones. That itself could take almost if not all day.

I did do this for my grans but I did it on a separate day as I knew I’d have to open all of them to reterminate and test again after as I’m changing the Cu.

 

[Jock from the north]

Napit book about coding is worth getting.

Really .not just another dollar in there bank account

 

[Jock from the north]

Yeah that makes sense, I’m just wondering how do you cover yourself for money/time/pricing when it comes to an eicr where there loads of sockets?
Like say there was 40 sockets and you sampled like 10 and and there was about 5 bad connections. You then have to undo 30 more and reterminate any bad ones. That itself could take almost if not all day.

I did do this for my grans but I did it on a separate day as I knew I’d have to open all of them to reterminate and test again after as I’m changing the Cu.

50 percent .that's a can of worms .what would you charge for that considering your inspecting half the installation. Let the customer decide its there property .let's say its a big house and there are no grommets on metal ko boxes ,that's a days remedial work on old lathe and plaster .that's possibly 30 downlights to remove from ceiling and sort basic insulation wrongly terminated into down light ..termination of cpc at extractor fan assuming there's more than 1 .digging out sockets or switch plates damaging walls to check terminations .pulling out expensive appliances like double ovens ,hobs ,drawer packs to get to elephants bottom ,dissmantling integrated kitchen appliances like fridges ,washing machines .I realise if there is an over counter isolator then other options are available. I guess you would have a long list of extent and limitations of inspection and testing with an agreement from customer and the reason .I guess you issue report to client but they will want you to sort any defects if anything fails the report .I myself like nothing better than removing metal boxes from walls and inserting grommets ,bursting the wall as I go x half the installation..maybe have an understanding with client of how much you are inspecting .testing takes care of itself ,your testing every circuit but quantity of inspection I would agree with client beforehand.and why just sockets on thread .I have white things on my wall quite high up that seem to operate lights .I also have isolators in my kitchen that switch off things like hobs and ovens and of course I have an immersion tank that if I was completing an eicr the flex at immersion head would be one of the first things I checked .I certainly wouldn't dissmantle 40 sockets lol checking for a loose connection. Is that not why we have mft,s .

 

[Jock from the north]

Hi just a quick one, I know some might say it’s pretty self explanatory but I want to get a few ideas.

What are the differences with the eicr codes and when would one be more suitable than the other.

I know c1 is immediate danger things like gaping hole in consumer units where you can reach the busbar, live terminal if socket busted open and you can touch it..
C2 is if it would be a danger if a fault occurred like no cpc to class 1 fittings
C3 recommended improvement like labels not on CU or no Rcd if install is older than when it was a reg

what about when it comes to LIM and N/V? Say for cables concealed in walls/ceilings or things you can’t see or access etc would you be more inclined to put LIM because you’re limited to access etc or N/V because it wasn’t able to be verified? I’m going to guess LIM because you verified some but limited to how much you could inspect? Do you note down for every single LIM code that you couldn’t access? Because I can see there being a lot of notes because of this

Also FI… this is only used when you have no access to the rest of that circuit which seems to be problematic right? Like if theres no end to end continuity on a ring and part of the ring is in a locked room

Regardless of whether you can gain access to certain parts of the circuit is irrelevant, if the ocpd is rated more than the conductor size then its a c2 .either one is an unsatisfactory report , as in further investigation .a locked room could be a commercial kitchen pantry .lots of current flowing thru 2 legs of a radial 2.5 mm circuit protected by say a c32amp mcb

 

[Jock from the north]

Okay thank you. So in what different scenarios would LIM supersede N/V? I’m a bit cautious of which one to put over the over to cover myself and get it right.

I’m going to say LIM when you can’t test something because of limited access such as not being able to get into a room or can’t move furniture out of the way and also if you can’t remove an accessory as it will damage the finishing or fabric of the building? Any other reasons you can suggest?

Lim is perfectly acceptable when access is almost impossible or which may result in damage to installation .like when someone is sound asleep in there bed in an care home and moving them requires a nurse just to plug in your martindale

 

[Jock from the north]

Okay thank you. So in what different scenarios would LIM supersede N/V? I’m a bit cautious of which one to put over the over to cover myself and get it right.

I’m going to say LIM when you can’t test something because of limited access such as not being able to get into a room or can’t move furniture out of the way and also if you can’t remove an accessory as it will damage the finishing or fabric of the building? Any other reasons you can suggest?

I agree .it's lim .your limited because you don't know how cables or services are run behind walls etc. I would normaly note n/v for say dno fuse sizes if it wasn't clear on side of fuse ,and your not going to be pulling it to check it out .

 

[buzzlightyear]

Because you can't see it, so N/V.

Really .not just another dollar in there bank account

The book is a Guide, very help full if you don't understand how thing work.

 

[Cables]

Regardless of whether you can gain access to certain parts of the circuit is irrelevant, if the ocpd is rated more than the conductor size then its a c2 .either one is an unsatisfactory report , as in further investigation .a locked room could be a commercial kitchen pantry .lots of current flowing thru 2 legs of a radial 2.5 mm circuit protected by say a c32amp mcb

Although I agree, an OCPD should not be rated higher than the conductor size, it may not warrant a C2.
Let’s say a 3amp switched fuse at a boiler 2.5mm, 32amp OCPD, single circuit.
Overload would not be possible on the cable so would not warrant a C2.
Or a 1.5mm spur of a ring circuit, same scenario.

Certainly not what you would do, but acceptable should it be found.

 

[Tom256]

In your given example of a 1.5mm spur off a ring circuit. This is not ok unless via a fused spur as overload is indeed possible.

Overload protection is required (Shall requirement) at the point a reduction of the current carrying capacity of conductors occurs EXCEPT where 433.2.2 applies.

Although I agree, an OCPD should not be rated higher than the conductor size

There are still checks and balances at play. The calculation for cable size where overload protection is not required is based on Ib (design current) and would be considered accordingly. In these circumstances the cable rating [as installed] must exceed the load yet may not neccessarily exceed the rating of the overcurrent device. It could therefore be higher and 'should not' is not relevant. This would need to be determined as part of the calculations associated with the inspection should there be reason for concern.
As a part of this the adiabatic check within regulation 434.5.2 is applied as it would be for the cpc

 

[Cables]

In your given example of a 1.5mm spur off a ring circuit. This is not ok unless via a fused spur as overload is indeed possible.

By my use of words “Same Scenario” meant, a 1.5 spur from a 32amp circuit (ring) via a switched fuse, maybe should have made that clearer.

 

[ppelec100]

50 percent .that's a can of worms .what would you charge for that considering your inspecting half the installation. Let the customer decide its there property .let's say its a big house and there are no grommets on metal ko boxes ,that's a days remedial work on old lathe and plaster .that's possibly 30 downlights to remove from ceiling and sort basic insulation wrongly terminated into down light ..termination of cpc at extractor fan assuming there's more than 1 .digging out sockets or switch plates damaging walls to check terminations .pulling out expensive appliances like double ovens ,hobs ,drawer packs to get to elephants bottom ,dissmantling integrated kitchen appliances like fridges ,washing machines .I realise if there is an over counter isolator then other options are available. I guess you would have a long list of extent and limitations of inspection and testing with an agreement from customer and the reason .I guess you issue report to client but they will want you to sort any defects if anything fails the report .I myself like nothing better than removing metal boxes from walls and inserting grommets ,bursting the wall as I go x half the installation..maybe have an understanding with client of how much you are inspecting .testing takes care of itself ,your testing every circuit but quantity of inspection I would agree with client beforehand.and why just sockets on thread .I have white things on my wall quite high up that seem to operate lights .I also have isolators in my kitchen that switch off things like hobs and ovens and of course I have an immersion tank that if I was completing an eicr the flex at immersion head would be one of the first things I checked .I certainly wouldn't dissmantle 40 sockets lol checking for a loose connection. Is that not why we have mft,s .

thanks for the reply, i agree with what youre saying so how would you go about wording this for the cost side of things before the eicr? something like a sample will be set out and if they are good then no further sampling but if they are bad /unsatisfactory then i will need to investigate further another time or there and then if you got the time but for extra hourly charge? (obviously not exactly worded like that lol but something along those lines)

 

[Jock from the north]

thanks for the reply, i agree with what youre saying so how would you go about wording this for the cost side of things before the eicr? something like a sample will be set out and if they are good then no further sampling but if they are bad /unsatisfactory then i will need to investigate further another time or there and then if you got the time but for extra hourly charge? (obviously not exactly worded like that lol but something along those lines)

I'm not sure how you would word it before hand but a simple verbal communication explaining that if the report is unsatisfactory and the customer wishes any remedials to be repaired then these would be charged at a certain rate .depending on how much remedials some electricians may just fix it there and then and just charge for materials or you could say you will not charge for the first hour or two and after that it's your full rate .some insurance companies will actually state on what percentage of the installation is to be tested ,say 10 ,20 or 30 percent but every year rather than 5 say but that's mostly for big buildings like care homes and offices etc.i guess the most important thing is for the customer to agree the extent of inspections ie 25 percent of sockets etc removed.this would give a fair idea the state of the installation. I stopped doing eicrs a few years back purely due to the remedials.having to sort a kitchen fitters broken ring then get to your next job is just stress.if it's a leasing agent then they will want it sorted ASAP normally because the tenants moving in the next day hence I don't do work for leasing agents but if its private then you have some grace period to quote for any remedials.