PIR codes

[Silly Sausage]

I'd be amazed if any of those sinks or tables meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part, there is no requirement for supplementary bonding in a kitchen either.

If you're doing this PIR then you need to be familiar with these requirements.

...and learn how to test for extraneous cond parts.

 

[Cazmac1]

...and learn how to test for extraneous cond parts.

All I can say is that who ever done the install thought that they needed to be bonded otherwise they wouldn't have wasted there time putting the bonds on in the first place. If I choose to ignore this fact then I won't be doing my job. One of the sinks has a socket about 450 away from he bowl which used to have a potato pealing machine plugged into it. This is no longer there now but could be used in the future. I'd be happy to listen to your full explanation as to why you think these sinks and metal tables never required bonding and why they shouldn't have there bonds and cross bonds reinstated. I myself am of the opinion that they do require bonding and cross bonding. I was only asking whether I should code it as a c1 or c2. I in the end will make up my own mind base on my own experience and reference material that I have at my disposal. I am happy that I have the skills and knowledge to carry out a periodic and no mater what advice I received on a forum I would make up my own mind.
Thanks for the advice if you and call it that, for all I know you are doing your part 1 lol

 

[IQ Electrical]

All I can say is that who ever done the install thought that they needed to be bonded otherwise they wouldn't have wasted there time putting the bonds on in the first place. If I choose to ignore this fact then I won't be doing my job. One of the sinks has a socket about 450 away from he bowl which used to have a potato pealing machine plugged into it. This is no longer there now but could be used in the future. I'd be happy to listen to your full explanation as to why you think these sinks and metal tables never required bonding and why they shouldn't have there bonds and cross bonds reinstated. I myself am of the opinion that they do require bonding and cross bonding. I was only asking whether I should code it as a c1 or c2. I in the end will make up my own mind base on my own experience and reference material that I have at my disposal. I am happy that I have the skills and knowledge to carry out a periodic and no mater what advice I received on a forum I would make up my own mind.
Thanks for the advice if you and call it that, for all I know you are doing your part 1 lol

I think you'll cover bonding requirements within your 'part 1'
Having the skill to carry out a periodic inspection requires 'an above-average knowledge of BS7671 and to suggest that 'cross bonding' is neccessary in a kitchen (is it a special location listed in Part 7?) does not convey this.

You'll get some excellent advice on this forum but whether you agree with it or not is your decision. Your client/employer though is paying you for your expertise and assessments.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Have a read of this from the IET: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...sg=AFQjCNEND6OOSax6NXs2AZbbTwubzXANIA&cad=rja

Specifically this piece:

"Much of
the confusion can be
attributed to the note of
Regulation 413-7 which
required the bonding of all
metallic items, essentially,
those within the designated
equipotential zone. This led
to the installation of
supplementary
equipotential bonding of
general metallic items such
as baths, ceiling grids, hand
rails, kitchen sinks,
radiators, pipework at
boilers, etc. Thankfully, we
have moved on from this
general concept.

Right, must get back to that Part 1 study now.......

 

[Guest123]

The current OSG has info on this, section 4.7, page 42-43.

Remember you are assessing against current regs, they do not become retrospective.

 

[AllertonEPS]

With respect "IQ Electrical" - I think you have missed the point of the question - I am not familiar with the 16th Edition regulations ( before my time ) - but I imagine bonding of sinks etc in kitchens to be necessary.... I think this is more a question of whether you should still be testing to the 16th edition at all. I would strongly advocate putting in an RCD ( whether that be a new consumer board - or how-ever ) - and then testing to the 17th edition.

The customer would reasonably expect a SATISFACTORY on a report to mean that he could extend the circuits - and testing it to the 16th edition would mean that a SATISFACTORY wouldn't indicate that extension of the circuits were possible.

So to answer the question - MY ANSWER would be a FAIL with the recommendation to get the consumer board up to the 17th Edition - before doing anything else....

 

[trev]

With respect "IQ Electrical" - I think you have missed the point of the question - I am not familiar with the 16th Edition regulations ( before my time ) - but I imagine bonding of sinks etc in kitchens to be necessary.... I think this is more a question of whether you should still be testing to the 16th edition at all. I would strongly advocate putting in an RCD ( whether that be a new consumer board - or how-ever ) - and then testing to the 17th edition.

The customer would reasonably expect a SATISFACTORY on a report to mean that he could extend the circuits - and testing it to the 16th edition would mean that a SATISFACTORY wouldn't indicate that extension of the circuits were possible.

So to answer the question - MY ANSWER would be a FAIL with the recommendation to get the consumer board up to the 17th Edition - before doing anything else....

Interesting post, what code would you give to a 16th split load board then?

 

[IQ Electrical]

With respect "IQ Electrical" - I think you have missed the point of the question - I am not familiar with the 16th Edition regulations ( before my time ) - but I imagine bonding of sinks etc in kitchens to be necessary.... I think this is more a question of whether you should still be testing to the 16th edition at all. I would strongly advocate putting in an RCD ( whether that be a new consumer board - or how-ever ) - and then testing to the 17th edition.

The customer would reasonably expect a SATISFACTORY on a report to mean that he could extend the circuits - and testing it to the 16th edition would mean that a SATISFACTORY wouldn't indicate that extension of the circuits were possible.

So to answer the question - MY ANSWER would be a FAIL with the recommendation to get the consumer board up to the 17th Edition - before doing anything else....

Missing the point?
You only test against the requirements of the current edition of BS7671 so how can you 'fail' an installation with missing 'cross bonding' when that requirement was withdrawn years ago?

I'm certainly not missing the point, it's crystal clear to me as is Guidance Note 3!

 

[AllertonEPS]

To IQ Electrical > We are both saying the same thing ... Just re-read my message as 'UNSATISFACTORY' instead of 'FAIL' and you'll feel a good deal better. Instead you ( correctly ) challenge the questioner's 'Competency' without clearing up his confusion - it seems to be standard fair for replies to posts. People have questions and the response here is to question their competency - instead of just delivering the keys words which clear up the confusion. Their competency for carrying out inspections is down to their chosen registration body to either assign or decline - the purpose of these threads is to help people.

 

[IQ Electrical]

To IQ Electrical > We are both saying the same thing ... Just re-read my message as 'UNSATISFACTORY' instead of 'FAIL' and you'll feel a good deal better. Instead you ( correctly ) challenge the questioner's 'Competency' without clearing up his confusion - it seems to be standard fair for replies to posts. People have questions and the response here is to question their competency - instead of just delivering the keys words which clear up the confusion. Their competency for carrying out inspections is down to their chosen registration body to either assign or decline - the purpose of these threads is to help people.

Did you miss the link that I posted in post 104?
Also, there is no requirement to be registered with a scheme provider to undertake periodic inspections.

 

[AllertonEPS]

That's right - the trouble is that you don't need qualifications to be on this forum - so responders are constantly challenging people's qualifications - rather than just answering questions. :rockon:

 

[trev]

That's right - the trouble is that you don't need qualifications to be on this forum - so responders are constantly challenging people's qualifications - rather than just answering questions. :rockon:

You're right you don't need quals to be on here however if you come on spouting wrong info and claiming to be something you;re not you're going to be found out fairly soon

 

[IQ Electrical]

That's right - the trouble is that you don't need qualifications to be on this forum - so responders are constantly challenging people's qualifications - rather than just answering questions. :rockon:

I take your point and always try to offer help/advice but there's a tipping point where you have to be honest with people regarding competence.
The PIRs I see day after day are completed to an appalling standard as I'm sure many here have also found.

We are being paid for our expertise/experience and have a duty to at least be familiar with the regulations that we are being asked to compare installations to before we accept such work.

 

[huntos33]

1mm Cables on a 16amp 60898 code C2 or C1 thinking a C2 myself What do you guys think

 

[HandySparks]

What's the cable type, installation method and load?

 

[huntos33]

What's the cable type, installation method and load?

6242Y Ref 100 , 2 cables in 16amp pulling around 7 amps in total, Running some lights in a hall , thing is the boards full so they cant be split on to 2 6amps.

 

[HandySparks]

So the cable's good for 13A, currently loaded to less than 7A on each leg and, I guess, unlikely to be overloaded unless the circuit is extended. I'd be inclined to give it a C2 and recommend changing the MCB to a 10A.

 

[IQ Electrical]

So the cable's good for 13A, currently loaded to less than 7A on each leg and, I guess, unlikely to be overloaded unless the circuit is extended. I'd be inclined to give it a C2 and recommend changing the MCB to a 10A.

Agreed

 

[huntos33]

One more ! 2 No 6 way wylex old style wooden backed boards with 60898 plug in mcbs covered by a main 30ma trip upfront on a tt system , but i feel as this is in a village hall this is not ideal ie total power loss if the main rcd trips. So i think a code 3 with an explaination in the eicr explaining this sound fair to you guys ?

 

[IQ Electrical]

One more ! 2 No 6 way wylex old style wooden backed boards with 60898 plug in mcbs covered by a main 30ma trip upfront on a tt system , but i feel as this is in a village hall this is not ideal ie total power loss if the main rcd trips. So i think a code 3 with an explaination in the eicr explaining this sound fair to you guys ?

Is there any emergency lighting? If so, I'd be happy to leave the RCD uncoded.
You can make mention of the wooden-backed Wylex in a covering letter but in the (literally) hundreds that I've encountered, I've never seen a problem yet!

 

[huntos33]

Is there any emergency lighting? If so, I'd be happy to leave the RCD uncoded.
You can make mention of the wooden-backed Wylex in a covering letter but in the (literally) hundreds that I've encountered, I've never seen a problem yet!

There is Emg lighting yes, will note the boards in the covering report letter , was just wonering as the rcd trip tests would sudgest it needs replacing( never explained that sorry), so just change the main rcd up front and this will be fine then, its just many people say this is bad practise, but i assume the emg lighting would cover the total lost of light issue.

 

[Bottletop]

This is about the best you'll find:
http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/use...y/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf

Has anyone else had problems opening this link. I can only view the first page.

 

[huntos33]

Has anyone else had problems opening this link. I can only view the first page.

No working fine for me Bottletop

- - - Updated - - -

Has anyone else had problems opening this link. I can only view the first page.

No working fine for me Bottletop

 

[Bottletop]

Thanks Huntos
Well just tried it again and still no joy. Can view the first (cover) sheet) and the rest of the pages are blank. Even tried to print it and it came out the same. Then tried the home pc and still the same. Deeply puzzled now.

 

[SJD]

The first page shows one sheet of A4, scroll to the next page and from then onwards you get 2 pages shown side-by-side, which might have something to do with not being able to read it depending on what version of Acrobat reader you have? Also, the subsequent pages take a little while to load, they initially appear black.

 

[Bottletop]

Thanks SJD.
Just shut down and restarted lappy and can now view it. .

 

[ganzo]

Handy info. Thanks

 

[nickblake]

so

Is there any emergency lighting? If so, I'd be happy to leave the RCD uncoded.
You can make mention of the wooden-backed Wylex in a covering letter but in the (literally) hundreds that I've encountered, I've never seen a problem yet!

sorry its a while after the post has been made , i have 3 house fires due to a fault within the board , also wood worm , lol yes i know and then if the board has plug in breakers or a mix of fuses and plug in breakers then there is a potential hazard with out the fuse cover as is often the case there is a small hole in the fuse carrier which exposes the main terminal , i have had a case where an elderly gentleman haning a pair of water proof trousers on a coat hanger stuck the end of the coat hanger into the hole and burnt his hand and gave him self a sever electric shock
so if you come across these boards with out the fuse cover then the coding should be a C1 if these terminals are exposed

 

[Bottletop]

Thats not a wooden consumer unit/back box. guess the woodworm are getting tougher. on a serious note, the chances of someone coming into contact with these exposed fuse carriers are miniscule, however still a risk so indeed i would also give it C1. Guess a lot of people would also say " been like that for 30 years and never had a problem.

 

[virgil]

hi.i didn't read all the messages but anyone mentioned anything for the codes for the new condition reportes?

 

[somersetsparks]

I do code missing fuseshields as a C1, wooden, open backs I don't code unless mounted on combustiable material. However, being resourceful I have a stash of wylex fuse covers from 1w to 8w for this eventuality. Saves failing an installation.

 

[IQ Electrical]

hi.i didn't read all the messages but anyone mentioned anything for the codes for the new condition reportes?

Hi Virgil, have a read of this: http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/use...y/best_practice/BestPracticeGuide4-Locked.pdf

 

[virgil]

thank you so much for your help iq electrical.

 

[nickblake]

Thats not a wooden consumer unit/back box. guess the woodworm are getting tougher. on a serious note, the chances of someone coming into contact with these exposed fuse carriers are miniscule, however still a risk so indeed i would also give it C1. Guess a lot of people would also say " been like that for 30 years and never had a problem.

lol sorry wrong pic this one is , ingrees protection should comply to IPxxB

 

[GaryM]

lol sorry wrong pic this one is , ingrees protection should comply to IPxxB View attachment 13069

That's the underside so yes, IPXXB (IP2X) and it's compliant with that as you wouldn't get a 12.5mm object into there.
I can't remember if the top of the carriers also show the same amount of exposed fuse wire, if so then I'd be looking for a minimum of IP4X which it would obviously fail if the cover isn't in place.

 

[virgil]

can someone help me please,electrical instalation condition report how do you clasifie fan in the bathroom without window?but in the batroom with window?

 

[trev]

So it's in a bathroom with no window but the bathroom has a window?
You might want to explain that a bit better mate

 

[virgil]

sorry you are right.how do you clasify in the new condition report missing fan in the bathroom without window?but missing fan in the bathroom with window?

 

[trev]

Both bathrooms have no fan but one bathroom has a window and one does not.
Is that the situation?

 

[IQ Electrical]

sorry you are right.how do you clasify in the new condition report missing fan in the bathroom without window?but missing fan in the bathroom with window?

You don't need to mention this, BS7671 makes no
mention of ventilation requirements and that's what your report is based on.

 

[virgil]

ok so if you don't have fan is ok is not our bussiness.thank you.but do yoy know if you have a fan and no isolator for it?(three poll isolator)

 

[GaryM]

Both bathrooms have no fan but one bathroom has a window and one does not.
Is that the situation?

That's how I read it.

BS7671 doesn't mention a requirement for a fan in a bathroom nor if windows (or lack of) are relevant. It's a Building Regulations issue.

EDIT - didn't see IQ's reply before posting!

 

[GaryM]

ok so if you don't have fan is ok is not our bussiness.thank you.but do yoy know if you have a fan and no isolator for it?(three poll isolator)

If there's a fan installed then it should be to Manufacturers Instructions.

 

[trev]

Was just trying to get the exact picture Gary as his explanation was as clear as mud. I thought that was what it was but wantedto make sure, then IQ hit the nail on the head

 

[GaryM]

Was just trying to get the exact picture Gary as his explanation was as clear as mud. I thought that was what it was but wantedto make sure, then IQ hit the nail on the head

Yeah, I was just agreeing with your interpretation, as you said, it wasn't too clear.

 

[virgil]

anyway i got what i want it from IQ.they helped me a lot without funny comments.i think this is the ideia of this forum to help eachother not to get clever.thank you anyway

 

[trev]

No one was trying to be funny mate, just the explanations weren't too clear. Never mind though we got there in the end

 

[Davehaywire]

these are old codes for pir, they have now been updated there are only 3 codes now for the eicr
1 is danger present unsatisfactory
2 is potentially dangerous unsatisfactory
3 is improvement recommended satisfactory

 

[Niceguy0584]

Hi All

I am new to this site, and was wondering if you can guide us to the right direction, I am doing EICR's and I have come across falts which are wired from submains with 16mm2 TW&E and the cable run is about 12 meters protected by kfm 60amp switch, my question is this installation is over 20 years old and the earth from from submains 16mm TW&E is used, which is 6mm and is non compliance to current reg, my question is which code would this be classified as? C1 C2 or C3

Thanks

Adam

 

[monkeyelectric]

Hi All

I am new to this site, and was wondering if you can guide us to the right direction, I am doing EICR's and I have come across falts which are wired from submains with 16mm2 TW&E and the cable run is about 12 meters protected by kfm 60amp switch, my question is this installation is over 20 years old and the earth from from submains 16mm TW&E is used, which is 6mm and is non compliance to current reg, my question is which code would this be classified as? C1 C2 or C3

Thanks

Adam

What is the earthing arrangment? If you do eicr's for a living i assume you know the definition of each code?