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
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 59 replies
  • Subscribers 30 subscribers
  • Views 7641 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EICR code- Cooker switch with a socket outlet lacking RCD protection.

Sparkingchip
1980's end of terrace house, MEM Memera consumer unit with a RCBO to provide 30 mA RCD protection to the socket ring circuit, but no other circuits have RCD protection and there is not any outdoor sockets at all.


There is a cooker switch incorporating a 13-amp socket outlet, which is the closest socket to the kitchen window and with 1.5 metres of it, this socket does not have 30 mA RCD protection, what EICR code should be applied and why?


Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    P. 475. CONDITION REPORT. Notes for the person producing the Report:


    An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading.


    Z.




  • 0

    Alcomax:




    Sparkingchip:

    The rental laws lack clarity, the government doesn’t actually seem to say if an EICR with C3 observations on it is acceptable or not.


    If there are EICRs with issues coded C3 will there have to be a lot of belated improvements and upgrades to electrical installation later this year?


    Andy Betteridge 




     

    That is not the case. The draft says


    (4) Where a report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) indicates that a private landlord is or is potentially in breach of the duty under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and the report requires the private landlord to undertake further investigative or remedial work, the private landlord must ensure that further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person



    That is clearly codes FI, C1 or C2, see section F of model form of EICR in BS7671.


    C3 is what it is. Advice for consideration. The draft does not state, in section 4 above, anything relating to "recommend improve".  All references in the draft , such as, " to standard" or "to BS7671" are referencing to the process of periodic reporting or to the expected standard of remedial action. That is perfectly normal. I can appreciate it may be a bit of a leap for those used to providing oven ready satisfactory EICRs, but this legislation does not mandate retrospective upgrading of the whole installation to the 18th . Reference to 18th is simply where we are.

     




    I'm still confused. As I see it the legislation requires compliance with (at present) the 18th -

     



    A private landlord(e) who grants or intends to grant a specified tenancy must—
    (a)ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises(f) are occupied under a specified tenancy;

     


    but then goes on to require an EICR - which really only deals with the question of whether the installation is safe enough for continued service - quite a different question to whether it complies complies with the current standard.


       - Andy.
  • 0

    Zoomup:

    P. 475. CONDITION REPORT. Notes for the person producing the Report:


    An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading.


    Z.




     




    This statement can't be used to argue that an installation to 1st Edition of the Regs is considered safe today.


    The issue is not one of compliance with the current Regulations, but the interpretation of whether this particular situation is now considered "unsafe" or "improvement recommended".


    So, I can see the argument that, without a fault, there's no immediate safety issue. But the same would be true of a final circuit in an installation employing ADS, without a protective conductor.

    Would we classify a socket-outlet circuit without a protective conductor as C1, C2 or C3?


    We are talking about an installation that is perhaps over 40 years old. I know how much RCDs were then. I know how much they are now.

    The issue for additional protection, is that it offers some respite where basic protection is missing ... say a damaged appliance lead. The lawnmower is often cited, but of course a flexible cable chewed by a pet or the vacuum cleaner may well be in the same position.


    In an installation to 17th Ed (12 years old), additional protection would be in place to guard against that. In many installations in the preceding 16 years, additional protection may have been included (well, it was called supplementary).


    On that basic level, how is lack of additional protection on a socket-outlet circuit any different to a broken or missing cpc, or lack of a means of earthing, and hence failure of ADS? In fact, in the latter two circumstances, additional protection may well offer some protection, however limited ... so is additional protection these days more important for dwellings ???



    I think at the end of the day, it's all about "tolerable risk" (or in other words "what can we get away with?") ... and it's a very uncomfortable discussion.

     

  • 0
    I think Graham hit it on the head there.

    In my short lifetime I`ve seen things change a lot (in all walks not just electrically).

    Things that were considered "no.rmal" we now mitigate against the risk in our rules. Sometimes this means we become complacent and therefore rely upon them too much and become less carefull than we would have done years ago.

    Just because regs improve things over time does not make installations an edition or two back become unsafe, however installs from the first regs could be perceived as unsafe in many ways when compared to today. It`sll a matter of relativity and we make that judgement, being human, of different ages and practices we all view things differently. It all about comparisons. We do not judge against absolute safety
  • 0
    Because of the usage of the property (rental) and the potential risks with the unprotected socket outlet,  this coding should be a C2, Potentially dangerous, urgent remedial action required. No question.


    Z.
  • 0
    Unfortunately Grahams argument here can be used to do almost anything on the grounds that it is "safer". I will cite the current new thing on the block, which are AFDDs, and perhaps surge suppressors too. These are said to increase safety, so should any installation without them be classed as "unsatisfactory"? It means that any domestic job will cost at least £1500 for parts, and I can see the customer reaction from here! In fact they will no longer employ electricians at all and do the job themselves based on very variable advice from the internet. I will give an example of the construction industry, where H&S has become the primary thing to shout about. It has also led to a huge increase in cost of probably 30% in everything. Sites where one may not use any kind of ladder are now common, and scaffolding is required for the simplest job, even if it is only to put a safety rail around a flat roof in case the worker forgets he is not on the ground. It is true that there has been a reduction in serious accidents, which is good, but there ought to be some consideration of the cost of each accident reduction, because society may not really gain as a whole. Cycling has become popular, but is now a major cause of serious cases to A&E, and motor cycles have always had a very high accident rate, about 20 times that of cars. These are not in any way "safer" by the definition we are using, so should both be banned? Children no longer walk to school (mine always did) because it could be dangerous except that cars outside schools have a significant accident rate to the children being picked up! Much of this is because people expect to be protected at all times, they no longer seem to learn to cope with risks as we did when children. If advice on how to use our home "safely" is ignored, why should the rest of us more sensible people be made to pay?
  • 0

    gkenyon:




    Zoomup:

    P. 475. CONDITION REPORT. Notes for the person producing the Report:


    An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading.


    Z.




     




    This statement can't be used to argue that an installation to 1st Edition of the Regs is considered safe today.


    The issue is not one of compliance with the current Regulations, but the interpretation of whether this particular situation is now considered "unsafe" or "improvement recommended".

     


     




    CONDITION REPORT. 


    Notes for the person producing the Report. Page 475.


    Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded.


    I still say a C2 is warranted.


    Z.

  • 0

    davezawadi:

    Unfortunately Grahams argument here can be used to do almost anything on the grounds that it is "safer". I will cite the current new thing on the block, which are AFDDs, and perhaps surge suppressors too. These are said to increase safety, so should any installation without them be classed as "unsatisfactory"?




    Perhaps, in the fullness of time ... they are not mandated at the moment, but the same "creep" occurred with RCDs, which were also very expensive initially.






    It means that any domestic job will cost at least £1500 for parts, and I can see the customer reaction from here! In fact they will no longer employ electricians at all and do the job themselves based on very variable advice from the internet.




    I can't disagree with that ...




    I will give an example of the construction industry, where H&S has become the primary thing to shout about. It has also led to a huge increase in cost of probably 30% in everything. Sites where one may not use any kind of ladder are now common, and scaffolding is required for the simplest job, even if it is only to put a safety rail around a flat roof in case the worker forgets he is not on the ground. It is true that there has been a reduction in serious accidents, which is good, but there ought to be some consideration of the cost of each accident reduction, because society may not really gain as a whole.




    It's an interesting point ... we're all happy to drive, despite the increased risks that brings.




    Cycling has become popular, but is now a major cause of serious cases to A&E, and motor cycles have always had a very high accident rate, about 20 times that of cars. These are not in any way "safer" by the definition we are using, so should both be banned? Children no longer walk to school (mine always did) because it could be dangerous except that cars outside schools have a significant accident rate to the children being picked up! Much of this is because people expect to be protected at all times, they no longer seem to learn to cope with risks as we did when children. If advice on how to use our home "safely" is ignored, why should the rest of us more sensible people be made to pay?




    And again, I can't disagree ... reducing the resilience of the population is not a good thing.

  • 0
    Perhaps the E.I.C.R. should allow for a more limited and specific condemnation of just a part of "the installation" rather than a total condemnation of the whole installation due to a C2 or C1 on just a part of it. The "Overall assessment of the installation in terms of suitability for continued use" is a very broad condemnation and may create inconvenience and worry. It is also a very "wooly" expression. What happens if 99 per cent of it is in good condition, is the whole installation to be condemned as dangerous?


    Z.
  • 0

    What happens if 99 per cent of it is in good condition, is the whole installation to be condemned as dangerous?



    Yes, but you only have to get 1% fixed to change that.


       - Andy.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines