Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 20 subscribers
  • Views 92 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

main protective equipotential bonding

Giles D

Would anyone be able to advise on non verification of bonding to the incoming water to a residential property and the subsequent reasoning for not issuing an EIC.

When completing the testing for the installation of 6 new circuits and a new consumer unit for these additional circuits, I could not verify the bonding to the oil or the water pipes. I informed the builder who had contracted me, that this would need to be completed before an EIC could be issued, and I also copied the client into the mail,

This is an old cottage in a country location, The water stop cock is in a boxing at the front door and the intake and consumer units are at the rear of the property. I had advised that getting the bonding cable to the water would be difficult and would possibly need to be run around the outside of the property and then in through the wall to the water. The oil would be easier as it was very close to the intake.

I offered to give a cost to complete this work, but the client advised that a colleague, who was an electrician would complete this and they would notify me once it had been completed. 
.
They advised it had been done and I returned and tested both the oil and the water. I got a reading on the oil but not the water. I also could not see the connection to the water anywhere. I informed them of this and they said it was in the loft and they would get their electrician to do it again. I informed them it needed to be within 600mm of entering the property and or before the first T. 
They advised again it had been done. I returned and this time I got a reading of 0.37, but again, I could not see the connection. The client says that they are going to be getting a new water supply in phase 2 of the works, in the near future.

Am I correct in advising that I still cannot issue an EIC. As the reading is too high, I cannot see the connection so it is therefore not accessible for maintenance and it is not within the 600mm of entering the property or before the first T.
Or, should I issue the EIC and put a departure from the regs and a note that the client has been informed and takes responsibility. My gut tells me I shouldn’t issue the EIC until I can verify the bonding

any thoughts would be much appreciated 

Regards Giles 

  • 0

    If updating the bonding was part of your remit, there would be no doubt - you install it, you certify it but here you are trying to adopt the work of others, which is an awkward area.

    It rather depends what the EIC is for - I presume you are happy with your consumer unit and the work done in that, and the Zs values and or RCD/RCBO if TT are OK to give an adequate ADS?

    Assuming so then I'd suggest that you have made the installation no less, and hopefully rather more safe than it was when you came in, so your  basic legal duty is satisfied. 

    If the incoming main is plastic, or has a suitable insulating section, then the the regs would indicate that the bonding could probably be omitted and be fully compliant anyway, but I presume that is unknown.

    Without seeing it, I'm leaning towards it maybe not being your problem, and if it was an EICR it might  be a C2 if it needed bonding but wasn't, but if it is bonded but concealed, then its more C3 territory .
    How are you verifying electrically ? Wander lead from MET to kitchen taps, or to stop tap outside or some other method ?

    Note that the 600mm thin is a strong recommendation, but not compulsory if in the particular  situation it is clearly impractical. What is then a good idea is in the 'notes' section to record if it is non-standard.

    Others may have additional thoughts, this sort of thing is not that rare.

    regards Mike.

  • 0 in reply to mapj1

    I'm leaning towards it maybe not being your problem,

    Unusually I see it differently to Mike on this one. If you're installing a new ADS circuit in an existing installation, the cert covers not just the physical new circuit itself, but also anything it relies on to ensure it's safe - and earthing and bonding is explicitly part of that (132.16). Even if your addition was perfect in itself, if Ze was too high, you've got problems; likewise if your circuit serves an area where bonding is part of the ADS requirements (i.e. it's indoors and any extraneous-conductive-parts are within reach (perhaps even within reach of something plugged into an extension lead plugged into your addition)) then you can't really claim BS 7671 compliance if the bonding is missing.

       - Andy.

  • 0 in reply to AJJewsbury

    Hi Folks, thank you for your replies. All very helpful and informative. Yes I agree it poses more issues than appears. Although the bonding was not part of my contract, especially as the client said another party would do this, I feel I cannot leave an installation un verified for bonding. Albeit a high reading, it is, now showing continuity and therefore bonded to some extent, so, far safer than it was before.

    I will not issue an EIC. A step further would be not to energise my part of the installation and lock it off until they get an independent bonding verification certificate. I will ponder on that?

    Again thank you for your replies

    Regards

    Giles 

Community Rules & Guidelines