OP
lobello
No disrespect to you (I would not expect you to) but it is clear that you do not understand the purpose nor application of supplementary bonding.
Unfortunately, nor do a lot of 'electricians'.
From your description, that is correct.
That's the point - it does not say 'all pipework', it says 'all extraneous conductive parts'.
Pipes that are NOT e-c-ps must NOT be bonded.
I would not think the CU replacement would involve checking "supplementary bonding was adequate" as none is now required.
The EICR would report on the installation without altering anything.
From what you say it would appear that some doubts should have been raised about the supplementary bonding.
No offence taken Geoff and your are correct.
The EICR and EIC have relevant boxes ticked for "Presence of supp bonding conductors".
Situation is...
Supp bonding to both hot and cold pipes and sink in the kitchen - 1 lead disappears into the wall.
Supp bonding from cold pipe in bathroom - 2 leads disappear into the wall. None on hot water pipes in bathroom.
No way of me verifying if this supp bonding goes to a. the MET or b. any or a number of the appliances within the kitchen or bathroom. Or even in the case of the bathroom cold pipe one cable could go to MET and one to the light.
Additionally no idea if the possibly short run of plastic pipe (it disappears into concrete floor) is long enough to make the pipework in the bathroom or kitchen non-extraneous or if it remains extraneous.
So many variables, what would be your advice - check back with the spark who did the EICR or the one who gave me the EIC, get another spark in. Or just trust it to have been assessed properly in the EICR.
And if no supp bonding is actually required is there any harm in there being supp bonding in the bathroom or kitchen (as detailed above) if it runs to aplliances in thos rooms rather than the MET.
Thanks