Poor install EICR 12 year old hotel

[conrad]

Carrying out an eicr. Thoughts on these DBs installed in each room. Around 20 have been installed in this manner with no gland on the supply SWA and the top surface of the DB completely removed.
Note the plasterboard hole is small in this image compared to some.
What do you think other than replacing baring in mind the rcbos for this DB can be £100 alone. Paxolin to slide in etc? Time. Shame for the customer who has had this poor installation.

I have noted as C2 for a number of different reasons. As follows if you wish to read.
522.8.5.
The SWA cable entering the DB has no gland fitted. C2
701.411.3.3
Circuits passing through and supplying accessories in loaction containing bath/shower not provided with RCD protection. C3
527.2.1
Large Hole not made good in plaster board above DB to prevent the spread of fire. C2
411.3.3
No RCD protection on socket outlets, commercial premesis. C2 (Fridge Socket)
522.6.202
No RCD protection for cables buried in the walls. C3
416.2.2
Top surface of Distribution Board has been removed. The integrity of the DB has not been maintained during installation. ip4x not maintained. C2.

 

[telectrix]

Carrying out an eicr. Thoughts on these DBs installed in each room. Around 20 have been installed in this manner with no gland on the supply SWA and the top surface of the DB completely removed.
Note the plasterboard hole is small in this image compared to some.
What do you think other than replacing baring in mind the rcbos for this DB can be £100 alone. Paxolin to slide in etc? Time. Shame for the customer who has had this poor installation.View attachment 46899 View attachment 46900
I have noted as C2 for a number of different reasons. As follows if you wish to read.
522.8.5.
The SWA cable entering the DB has no gland fitted. C2
701.411.3.3
Circuits passing through and supplying accessories in loaction containing bath/shower not provided with RCD protection. C3
527.2.1 C2
Large Hole not made good in plaster board above DB to prevent the spread of fire. C2
411.3.3
No RCD protection on socket outlets, commercial premesis. C2 (Fridge Socket)
522.6.202
No RCD protection for cables buried in the walls. C3. C2
416.2.2
Top surface of Distribution Board has been removed. The integrity of the DB has not been maintained during installation. ip4x not maintained. C2.

View attachment 46901

my thoughts added to above. might be ott, but that's what i think.

 

[Ian1981]

If the swa is glanded at the supply end and the armour is at least connected to earth, I can’t see how it can possibly be a C2 unless there is signs of mechanical stresses on the cable at the load end?

 

[Flanders]

Agree with you on most of them but not the code 2 for sockets outlets, unless they can be used out doors, Yes I agree it would be better to have RCD protection but not sure if I could justify a code 2 it would be a code 3 for me if they can not be use outdoors.

 

[telectrix]

Agree with you on most of them but not the code 2 for sockets outlets, unless they can be used out doors, Yes I agree it would be better to have RCD protection but not sure if I could justify a code 2 it would be a code 3 for me if they can not be use outdoors.

have to disagree with that. just as easy to damage an appliance flex indoors as it is outdoors, so a potential danger.... ergo a C2.

 

[Ian1981]

have to disagree with that. just as easy to damage an appliance flex indoors as it is outdoors, so a potential danger.... ergo a C2.

The idea is tho that you are now outside the equipotential bonding using outdoor equipment so I’d agree that if socket outlets that are not likely to be used outdoors and this is carefull considered by the inspector perhaps in conjunction with the client, then I agree a C3 at worst for no rcd protection to sockets.
You are coding against additional protection to the user and not the equipment plugged into it
For a specific socket used as in the op for a fridge it can’t possibly be a C2 code

 

[telectrix]

agree with the fridge socket. we have 3 freezers and a fridge/freezer in garage, aka man cave. no RCD on sockets. ifi get zapped, it's my own fault. the 2 outside sockets on the circuit however are both RCD sockets. bench supplies are similar to this:

 

[littlespark]

Is this one of those big modular hotels where the entire bedroom is craned into position and "plugged in"?
I'm thinking its a big concrete or metal box. A fire within the room or the CU would be confined to the module itself. The hole in the plasterboard doesn't go through to the rest of the hotel.

 

[Flanders]

Thinking about the hole I would not code 2 for fire reasons because as long as all the terminals are tight its not going to catch on fire , but might code 2 it due to the amount of dust debris that could build up inside the CU and get into the terminals due to the large hole.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The DB will be IPX4 with the cover on,as access is prevented by the ceiling. Code 3 as manufacturers instructions not complied with . The coding for the bath/ shower room would depend on the presence or not of supplementary bonding, code 2 without, code 3 with. If there is any possibility of movement on the SWA I would code 2, otherwise code 3.
A socket outlet without RCD protection cannot possibly be potentially dangerous unless there is a particular hazard, such as supplying mobile equipment outdoors. An indoor socket for a fridge cannot warrant a code 2, code 3 is appropriate.

 

[conrad]

Agree with you on most of them but not the code 2 for sockets outlets, unless they can be used out doors, Yes I agree it would be better to have RCD protection but not sure if I could justify a code 2 it would be a code 3 for me if they can not be use outdoors.

In a commercial premesis it is marked as a C2 in the Napit codebreakers book.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Napit are wrong then.

 

[conrad]

Is this one of those big modular hotels where the entire bedroom is craned into position and "plugged in"?
I'm thinking its a big concrete or metal box. A fire within the room or the CU would be confined to the module itself. The hole in the plasterboard doesn't go through to the rest of the hotel.

No

 

[Ian1981]

In a commercial premesis it is marked as a C2 in the Napit codebreakers book.

They also code 2 pvc cables not rcd protected in walls less than 50mm from surface so it’s not to be taken as gospel in my opinion.
Books like this can have the opposite effect as in people will use it as gospel rather than coding it on the current circumstances

 

[Flanders]

In a commercial premesis it is marked as a C2 in the Napit codebreakers book.

Does it give a reason for this? , also is a hotel classed as commercial I thought they would be classed as simply a hotel

 

[conrad]

Thinking about the hole I would not code 2 for fire reasons because as long as all the terminals are tight its not going to catch on fire , but might code 2 it due to the amount of dust debris that could build up inside the CU and get into the terminals due to the large hole.

Again reading the napit codebreakers book it states holes not made goot as to reduce the spread of fire are C2. I would rather C2 and have a valid reference such as a book than to C3 it and argue against it.

 

[Flanders]

They also code 2 pvc cables not rcd protected in walls less than 50mm from surface so it’s not to be taken as gospel in my opinion.

Agree with you there thats always a code 3 for me

 

[Flanders]

They also code 2 pvc cables not rcd protected in walls less than 50mm from surface so it’s not to be taken as gospel in my opinion.

Agree with you there thats always a code 3 for me

 

[Ian1981]

Again reading the napit codebreakers book it states holes not made goot as to reduce the spread of fire are C2. I would rather C2 and have a valid reference such as a book than to C3 it and argue against it.

You have bs 7671 as reference.
It can be considered a C2 if it’s a fire barrier as per section 527

 

[conrad]

Thinking about the hole I would not code 2 for fire reasons because as long as all the terminals are tight its not going to catch on fire , but might code 2 it due to the amount of dust debris that could build up inside the CU and get into the terminals due to the large hole.

Again reading the napit codebreakers book it states holes not made goot as to reduce the spread of fire are C2. I would rather C2 and have a valid reference such as a book than to C3 it and argue against it.

Napit are wrong then.

I disagree. If someone was to plug something in

You have bs 7671 as reference.
It can be considered a C2 if it’s a fire barrier

527.2.1 is the reg attached to the coding in the napit book. Obviously there will be no mention of coding in the regs but again i would rather have a reference, although i agree not gospel.

 

[conrad]

Agree with you there thats always a code 3 for me

I put C3 and i believe it is a C3 in the napit book.

 

[Flanders]

Again reading the napit codebreakers book it states holes not made goot as to reduce the spread of fire are C2. I would rather C2 and have a valid reference such as a book than to C3 it and argue against it.

There is no right or wrong answer its down to the persifics of each situation and you make a judgment call on it I will stick with my code 3 but would not judge someone else if they where to code 2 it .

 

[conrad]

The idea is tho that you are now outside the equipotential bonding using outdoor equipment so I’d agree that if socket outlets that are not likely to be used outdoors and this is carefull considered by the inspector perhaps in conjunction with the client, then I agree a C3 at worst for no rcd protection to sockets.
You are coding against additional protection to the user and not the equipment plugged into it
For a specific socket used as in the op for a fridge it can’t possibly be a C2 code

The sockets are not labelled, no risk assessment and they are not being used for the fridges in alot of the rooms. The client also said that he often finds the fridges have been unplugged as there isnt enough sockets in the rooms

 

[conrad]

If the swa is glanded at the supply end and the armour is at least connected to earth, I can’t see how it can possibly be a C2 unless there is signs of mechanical stresses on the cable at the load end?

Cant see above the DB to see if its cleated well and they all seam to be coming in at angles. Its all together rough so ill stick with C2. If i was to share some of the communal areas you would agree. The rooms are good compared.

 

[conrad]

There is no right or wrong answer its down to the persifics of each situation and you make a judgment call on it I will stick with my code 3 but would not judge someone else if they where to code 2 it .

I think youd agree that it is rough and would prefer to see the DB installed properly and stick an rcd socket on the socket not protected as again the client has stated people unplug the fridge and use it for all sorts.

Does it give a reason for this? , also is a hotel classed as commercial I thought they would be classed as simply a hotel

Yes its classed as commercial premesis.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Regarding the socket, it's a code 3 for me, however in these circumstances I always add an advisory note that the provision of RCD protection is strongly recommended. Given that under a very recent edition of Bs7671 the provision of a socket outlet for a specific item of equipment was permitted without RCD protection it is very hard to justify a 'potentially dangerous' code.

 

[conrad]

Regarding the socket, it's a code 3 for me, however in these circumstances I always add an advisory note that the provision of RCD protection is strongly recommended. Given that under a very recent edition of Bs7671 the provision of a socket outlet for a specific item of equipment was permitted without RCD protection it is very hard to justify a 'potentially dangerous' code.

But the reg 411.3.3 specifically says risk assessment required and even if ther was its clearly not being used for a specific item of equipment. I still think C2 when the public are involved especially in terms of liability.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It’s the 18th now.
All socket-outlets must have RCD protection.
Risk Assessments are out the window.

 

[dmxtothemax]

We do not know the conditions under which this instal was done,
It seems to be mostly what people might call sloopy work,
Or not " Best practice " but it is not really dangerous,
it's just not best practice.
Many electrical instals are done to a lower standard,
yet last for decades with no problems.
everything can always be done better

 

[Ian1981]

It’s the 18th now.
All socket-outlets must have RCD protection.
Risk Assessments are out the window.

Risk assessments are not out of the window on non domestic installations 411.3.3 an exception to (i) is permitted where other than an installation in a dwelling, a documented risk assessment determines that rcd protection is not necessary

 

[Ian1981]

But the reg 411.3.3 specifically says risk assessment required and even if ther was its clearly not being used for a specific item of equipment. I still think C2 when the public are involved especially in terms of liability.

The regulations do not differ on who is using the sockets so you can’t make that argument
The fact that a documented risk assessment can be used on non domestic installations gives, if anything gives a bit of a relaxation on 411.3.3

 

[conrad]

The regulations do not differ on who is using the sockets so you can’t make that argument
The fact that a documented risk assessment can be used on non domestic installations gives, if anything gives a bit of a relaxation on 411.3.3

 

[Ian1981]

But the reg 411.3.3 specifically says risk assessment required and even if ther was its clearly not being used for a specific item of equipment. I still think C2 when the public are involved especially in terms of liability.

The regulations do not differ on who is using the sockets so you can’t make that argument

View attachment 46928

they do and can not speak for the whole industry.
I can show you an NICEIC similar list which is available to the online customers which gives a C3.
You see the problem

 

[conrad]

View attachment 46928

I disagree on the relaxation. Its always been for specific use items and in this instance the socket has extention leads plugged in etc. The hotel would be liable in my eyes. You can make the argument as in my eyes the reg does differ from the users when it specifically says risk assessment to be performed in non dwelling etc...

 

[conrad]

I walked into this in a cleaners cupboard in the hotel kitchen. Apparently been like this since it opened. I think you will take your sloppy workmanship statement back. The lid was wide open, i havnt opened it.

 

[Rpa07]

I’ll imagine that someone’s been using that as a locker! They probably keep the 5mm retaining bolts on a keychain!
Nice to see proper blanks being used!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Risk assessments are not out of the window on non domestic installations 411.3.3 an exception to (i) is permitted where other than an installation in a dwelling, a documented risk assessment determines that rcd protection is not necessary

I stand corrected, thought that was being dropped.
At least they’ve took on board that the RA must determine “RCD protection is not necessary”.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I note that the Hotel is 12 years old, which means it was designed to the 16th edition.
As such RCD protection was not required unless it could reasonably be assumed that the sockets would be used to provide power to portable equipment used outdoors.
If the inspection is being conducted in accordance with BS7671, then the lack of RCD protection would be a code C3 (complied at the time of design/construction).

 

[Silly Sausage]

Another thought, there should be two other Inspection Reports somewhere (5 yearly for hotels?), which would be worth viewing.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

This current EICR, is probably meant to be the 2nd.
Though is most likely the 1st.