satisfactory unsatisfactory

[Smarky]

Hi Guys.

If carrying out an EICR you are unable to find a UFH circuits spur, is the EICR still passable under some type of limitation? Or is there a code involved.

Thank you!

Smarky

 

[Rockingit]

You'd just mark it as FI and note why. However you'd also use your engineering judgment based on the condition of everything else as to whether you think it's likely to be an issue or not and issue satisfactory or unsatisfactory on that basis

 

[Smarky]

You'd just mark it as FI and note why. However you'd also use your engineering judgment based on the condition of everything else as to whether you think it's likely to be an issue or not and issue satisfactory or unsatisfactory on that basis

Thanks for your quick response, Its greatly appreciated

 

[davesparks]

What exactly do you mean by can't find a spur?

Do you mean it's fed from a ring circuit but you can't find a switched fused connection unit or other means of fusing down and isolation for it?

If the UFH is connected directly to a ring circuit without a fuse of some kind then that's a C2 observation.

If its on a suitably sized dedicated circuit without an means of isolation other than the MCB then it is unlikely to warrant any code.

 

[Smarky]

What exactly do you mean by can't find a spur?

Do you mean it's fed from a ring circuit but you can't find a switched fused connection unit or other means of fusing down and isolation for it?

If the UFH is connected directly to a ring circuit without a fuse of some kind then that's a C2 observation.

If its on a suitably sized dedicated circuit without an means of isolation other than the MCB then it is unlikely to warrant any code.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your reply its on a dedicated circuit appropriately rated without a fused spur or at leaset unable to find one!

 

[Rockingit]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your reply its on a dedicated circuit appropriately rated without a fused spur or at leaset unable to find one!

So basically you've just got a mystery cct where you know the start and what it's labelled for but can't locate the other end? Classic.

 

[davesparks]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your reply its on a dedicated circuit appropriately rated without a fused spur or at leaset unable to find one!

Why would a dedicated circuit need a fused connection unit?

 

[Rockingit]

Why would a dedicated circuit need a fused connection unit?

I saw that and just thought it was poorly worded?

 

[Smarky]

Why would a dedicated circuit need a fused connection unit?

Normally I would expect to see some sort of fused spur or at least if myself or the majority of people were to install such a circuit, then a fused spur would be put in - no!! or at least a point of connection to the UFH! Which i am unable to find.

 

[Smarky]

I saw that and just thought it was poorly worded?

Dedicated as in its not coming off a ring circuit for example but direct from and noted at the DB!

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Why would a dedicated circuit need a fused connection unit?

Wouldn't you want a local point of isolation, rather than using the MCB/RCBO?

 

[loz2754]

Wouldn't you want a local point of isolation, rather than using the MCB/RCBO?

Yes I would agree. But a 20 amp DP switch may be more appropriate for UFH, depending on the wattage of the heating mats.

 

[davesparks]

Wouldn't you want a local point of isolation, rather than using the MCB/RCBO?

Yes, a point of isolation would be very sensible, my question is more about why they would want a local fuse rather than just an isolator.

 

[Smarky]

Yes, a point of isolation would be very sensible, my question is more about why they would want a local fuse rather than just an isolator.

To be honest I just want an end to get a reading off! I said fused spur as that what I would normally see but some type of isolator or end of circuit to be able to get an r1 + r2 which i am currently unable to find.

Thanks

Smarky

 

[davesparks]

Normally I would expect to see some sort of fused spur or at least if myself or the majority of people were to install such a circuit, then a fused spur would be put in - no!! or at least a point of connection to the UFH! Which i am unable to find.

I wouldnt expect to see a fused connection unit on a dedicated circuit, I'd expect to see an isolator. The MCB should be sized appropriately so a local fuse is unnecessary.

But you're not carrying out an EICR based on your opinion or exoectations, you are carrying it out based on the regulations.
As far as I know, and general consensus seems to be, that an MCB satisfies the minimum requirement as a means of isolating an appliance on a dedicated circuit.

 

[davesparks]

To be honest I just want an end to get a reading off! I said fused spur as that what I would normally see but some type of isolator or end of circuit to be able to get an r1 + r2 which i am currently unable to find.

Thanks

Smarky

Is there not a thermostat controlling the UFH?

 

[Risteard]

You'd just mark it as FI and note why. However you'd also use your engineering judgment based on the condition of everything else as to whether you think it's likely to be an issue or not and issue satisfactory or unsatisfactory on that basis

"FI" automatically makes the Report outcome "Unsatisfactory".

 

[Rockingit]

"FI" automatically makes the Report outcome "Unsatisfactory".

Since when?! On that logic, any LIM is also an unsatisfactory

 

[loz2754]

Since when?! On that logic, any LIM is also an unsatisfactory

BS7671 page 521 item 9

 

[nicebutdim]

Since when?! On that logic, any LIM is also an unsatisfactory

Surely limitation is something you haven't checked, but have no reason to suspect any issues, whereas FI indicates a potential issue which requires further investigation?

As such I fail to follow your logic.

 

[davesparks]

Since when?! On that logic, any LIM is also an unsatisfactory

Since we changed from PIR's and the old coding system to EICRs it has always been that C1, C2 and FI are an automatic unsatisfactory result.

 

[Rockingit]

Surely limitation is something you haven't checked, but have no reason to suspect any issues, whereas FI indicates a potential issue which requires further investigation?

As such I fail to follow your logic.

What’s the difference between not conducting an R1R2 on a circuit you can’t find and not conducting one that you can’t deenergise? None whatsoever - both could potentially fail to be safe.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

What’s the difference between not conducting an R1R2 on a circuit you can’t find and not conducting one that you can’t deenergise? None whatsoever - both could potentially fail to be safe.

I see where you're coming from, but there is a difference. The unknown circuit could have any number of C1s or C2s on it, you just don't know. The circuit that can't be switched off can be visually inspected, and live tests such as polarity, Zs, R2 etc can indicate the health of the circuit and whether disconnection times are met.

 

[Rockingit]

"FI" automatically makes the Report outcome "Unsatisfactory".

BS7671 page 521 item 9

Since we changed from PIR's and the old coding system to EICRs it has always been that C1, C2 and FI are an automatic unsatisfactory result.

OK - every day’s a school day and having just stuck my head into the books over a coffee for a refresh, I got it wrong-ish.

BPG4 (page 16) says that “Presence of circuits that cannot be readily identified or traced” warrants an FI code. And both BPG and 7671 state that an FI = an unsatisfactory result. So that sadly is that as far as the OP here.

Where I come back to my ‘ish’ is that it’s the job of an inspector to determine whether or not something is safe for continued use. We have all seen test sheets (mostly on here) with circuit after circuit full of LIM - making them largely meaningless but passable. Yet if you can’t find the end of one circuit in an otherwise 100% spanking install, simply because the heating engineer (a theoretically skilled and competent trade) has had to hide it somewhere in an un-obvious location then you have to return a failure and an instruction to the client that they’ll have to dismantle the place brick by brick until you’ve found it??!

 

[davesparks]

What’s the difference between not conducting an R1R2 on a circuit you can’t find and not conducting one that you can’t deenergise? None whatsoever - both could potentially fail to be safe.

With the circuit you cannot de-energise you know what it does and can inspect it and often carry out an R2 and/or Zs test. It is a know quantity and can be assessed.
You make a conscious decision about whether it is acceptable not to test that circuit when agreeing the departure.

An untraced/untraceable circuit is an unknown quantity, you can't inspect it or carry out any tests.

 

[davesparks]

Yet if you can’t find the end of one circuit in an otherwise 100% spanking install, simply because the heating engineer (a theoretically skilled and competent trade) has had to hide it somewhere in an un-obvious location then you have to return a failure and an instruction to the client that they’ll have to dismantle the place brick by brick until you’ve found it??!

No, no need to dismantle the place.
You use your common sense, if the installation is 100% perfect bar one missing point on a heating system you would probably give it a C3 and advise the customer to contact the heating engineer.

Also you don't return a failure, it is an unsatisfactory result, and you don't give the customer instructions on what to do, you make recommendations.

 

[davesparks]

BPG4 (page 16) says that “Presence of circuits that cannot be readily identified or traced” warrants an FI code. And both BPG and 7671 state that an FI = an unsatisfactory result. So that sadly is that as far as the OP here.

But in the OP's case it isn't an unidentified circuit, they know that the circuit feeds underfloor heating.

As far as I can see the issue they have is the lack of a local isolator, something that would attract a C3 I think. Presumably they have a thermostat or other control for the underfloor heating where they can carry out tests, otherwise if it's powered 24/7 it's almost certainly burned out and can be isolated at the DB.

 

[nicebutdim]

OK - every day’s a school day and having just stuck my head into the books over a coffee for a refresh, I got it wrong-ish.

BPG4 (page 16) says that “Presence of circuits that cannot be readily identified or traced” warrants an FI code. And both BPG and 7671 state that an FI = an unsatisfactory result. So that sadly is that as far as the OP here.

Where I come back to my ‘ish’ is that it’s the job of an inspector to determine whether or not something is safe for continued use. We have all seen test sheets (mostly on here) with circuit after circuit full of LIM - making them largely meaningless but passable. Yet if you can’t find the end of one circuit in an otherwise 100% spanking install, simply because the heating engineer (a theoretically skilled and competent trade) has had to hide it somewhere in an un-obvious location then you have to return a failure and an instruction to the client that they’ll have to dismantle the place brick by brick until you’ve found it??!

The result of those reports will have been based on the engineerging judgement (or lack of) of the inspector.

Agreed limitations won't necessitate an unsatisfactory report.

Sheets filled with limitations won't necessarily mean a satisfactory result, even if no codes are recorded which might generally be expected on an unsatisfactory report.

If certain circuits can not be deenergised, and old reports indicate this has been the situation on successive inspections, then one might pay particular attention to what can be seen of them or perhaps decide it is not acceptable to deem an installation 'satisfactory' when the same chunks of it have been ignored or overlooked for decades.

 

[brianmoooore]

If I had a circuit that I really couldn't identify, even after enquiring about things like sewage or water pumps, then I would disconnect it and notify the occupier, rather than marking it FI in an otherwise satisfactory installation.

 

[Risteard]

If I had a circuit that I really couldn't identify, even after enquiring about things like sewage or water pumps, then I would disconnect it and notify the occupier, rather than marking it FI in an otherwise satisfactory installation.

You could, but that's getting into the territory of remedial action as opposed to reporting. And you would want to be certain that it's not something critical.

 

[brianmoooore]

You could, but that's getting into the territory of remedial action as opposed to reporting.

Not really. You will be disconnecting to test, so just leave disconnected. There's a perfect example in another current thread, where a (badly) terminated, but still live wire was discovered behind plasterboard in a bathroom.
As for "something critical", I mentioned sewage and water supply pumps, and always report to the property occupier what I've done, with instructions to contact me immediately if something that was working is now found not to be.
One example I remember from some time ago, was that the stairwell lights in the neighbouring property had ceased working after my visit.

 

[Risteard]

Not really. You will be disconnecting to test, so just leave disconnected. There's a perfect example in another current thread, where a (badly) terminated, but still live wire was discovered behind plasterboard in a bathroom.
As for "something critical", I mentioned sewage and water supply pumps, and always report to the property occupier what I've done, with instructions to contact me immediately if something that was working is now found not to be.
One example I remember from some time ago, was that the stairwell lights in the neighbouring property had ceased working after my visit.

I don't generally disconnect anything to test it - an exception perhaps being the humble ring final circuit for ring continuity.