Off-peak consumer for storage heaters EICR

[Weebobz]

For me, the off peak consumer unit is not the "main or principle consumer unit".

I have seen quite a few situations where over-zealous application of latest regulations against a budget has actually left things in a more dangerous condition dur to poor workmanship and materials.
I'm obviously not saying you would do that, but if everyone in Scotland changes every off-peak board then I bet the number of consumer unit fires will go up next year.

This is a good point, but surely still requires a EICR to BS7671, which previously hadn't been captured by the person who tested the house back in 2020. For me a C3 code is suffice as you have highlighted its not as clear cut as I first presumed.

 

[timhoward]

still requires a EICR to BS7671, which previously hadn't been captured by the person who tested the house back in 2020. For me a C3 code is suffice as you have highlighted its not as clear cut as I first presumed.

From BS7671's point of view, RCDs can be required for fault protection, impact protection, or additional protection.
It can often be a reasonable limitation of the EICR (front page) that they aren't going to excavate every wall to check the depth of buried cables, meaning Impact Protection would have to be very obviously deficient to code it.
It's quite likely that for the storage heaters the installation meets the current regs for fault protection and additional protection (section 411.3)
So I do actually find it completely plausible that a sparks who understands the regs might not code it at all.

 

[Weebobz]

From BS7671's point of view, RCDs can be required for fault protection, impact protection, or additional protection.
It can often be a reasonable limitation of the EICR (front page) that they aren't going to excavate every wall to check the depth of buried cables, meaning Impact Protection would have to be very obviously deficient to code it.
It's quite likely that for the storage heaters the installation meets the current regs for fault protection and additional protection (section 411.3)
So I do actually find it completely plausible that a sparks who understands the regs might not code it at all.

Missing the board out completely from the EICR though is non compliant.

 

[ukiri]

Timhoward didn`t say miss the board off the eicr , he said it might not required a code.

 

[Weebobz]

Timhoward didn`t say miss the board off the eicr , he said it might not required a code.

Never said he did?