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 7654 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

    Zoomup:

    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.



    Of course.  You're not really going to issue a "passed" certificate if some part of the installation is dangerous are you?

     

  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    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.

     




    In Sparkingchip's case he was not at the job to "fix" anything. He was simply there to carry out an inspection and test and issue an E.I.C.R. for the landlord.


    But upon reflection, using the old car M.O.T. analogy, if a car fails its M.O.T. due to say a split passenger side windscreen wiper blade ( a minor matter), then the whole car fails and should not be driven on public roads. This may demonstrate the attitude of the owner to required maintenance of the car, so should force the owner to keep the car in better condition at all times, not just before the test.


    Z.

  • 0

    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




     A simple question, but we don’t seem to have a definitive answer after fifty two posts and over a thousand views.


    Andy Betteridge 

  • 0

    Sparkingchip:




    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




     A simple question, but we don’t seem to have a definitive answer after fifty two posts and over a thousand views.


    Andy Betteridge 


     



     

    You want a one size fits all solution. You are not going to get that with BS7671. Context and engineering judgement is required and being able to back up this up is needed to decide.  Obviously being physically present to make this judgement is essential. So not really a "drive by" Report or "Report by Google" or  trial by forum is going to cut it.


    If this is all such a problem, then another mechanism separate to BS7671 is required for in-service safety verification of dwellings


    EICR should not be some trumped up "third party verification" applied after the event to installation works [ to make clear :  this is Electrical Installation works requiring some kind of design, construction and certification ] and being used to force "upgrading" of Installation works that were not done to standard in the first instance.


    If something is constructed initially to standard.

    Then maintained to standard.

    Then periodically Inspected as per the standard.

    Interim additions/alterations are all done to standard.

    Then, by conclusion, what you are likely to have, at the end of the day, is an Installation not very far away from the latest requirements for new installation works to BS7671 and there would not be all this gnashing of teeth.


    Stuff gets added to. Circuits are added to. If these works had had BS7671 applied at the time and fit for purpose maintenance in the interim, there would not be this perceived "safety problem", as upgrading to standard would happen gradually.


    Not sure how often I have said this now, it seems like a thousand times, but EICR, as BS7671 does not fit well with a significant amount of existing electrical installations as they are not done to BS7671. The process of EICR works on the presumption that all that has gone before had BS7671 involved. Obviously this is not real world as economics has driven the use of EICR as a substitute for works being done to a safe standard in the first instance.


    With an EICR, in the utopian ideal of BS7671 land, you would simply looking for deterioration , damage , faulty protective devices any change of use that affects the risk, and general wear and tear etc.


    If there is such a problem, focus on who, what and how electrical installation and maintenance works are being carried out and why this is.



     

  • 0
    "that were not done to standard in the first instance"  also where those standards  are now considered considerably lacking in regards to safety
  • 0

    ebee:
    "that were not done to standard in the first instance"  also where those standards  are now considered considerably lacking in regards to safety



    The standard is the whole process applied during a lifetime. So you EICR a lot of 50 year old + houses that are untouched and "as original"?


    I suppose if you do, who are you gonna call?

     

  • 0
    Part of the problem is that the wiring regs and now BS7671 that inherits so much from them, were never intended to be called up in legislation, and so can afford to be a bit woolly. The authors of the original regs did not need to consider every case, and to justify each regulation, as there was the 'does not really apply in this case ' defence, and this was necessary as the technology was expanding into a vaccum.

    Clearly the current desire is to be more regulated, but then the decisions need to be accountable - that is if there is a recommendation or a rule it needs to be backed up by some science, and a lot of it is not.

    This is quite clearly demonstrated by looking at other countries rules and their accident rates.

    Consider as a noddy example the bathroom socket - fine in Germany above the sink and out of splash zone in every little bedsit and flat, a lethal danger in the UK in all but the largest bathrooms, according to the respective DIN and BS documents.

    To steal a line from the 'Dire Straits' song

    " Well, one of them must be wrong". Clearly only a funny UK-centric 'preference' really, as in fact the accident rates in both countries are very similar.

    Or ring finals - likely to get your design  thrown out on the continent, but absolutely fine in the UK. 

    Reduced or full size CPC ?

    The list goes on.


    Now to inspect and  decide if something is safe needs some more thought - and a realisation that actually quite a lot of what BS7671 requests is not really supported by any realistic figures or analysis of fires or electroctions, it just makes a nice consistent set of rules that we are happy with for most cases - meeting BS7671 may not be safe, and in other cases it, not meeting it may well not be dangerous.

    Do we want a significantly cut down set of regs for inspections that are not as restrictive that only specify the cases that actually can be justified ?


  • 0
    Hi Alcomax. I`m not sure what you are eluding to
  • 0

    Sparkingchip:




    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




     A simple question, but we don’t seem to have a definitive answer after fifty two posts and over a thousand views.


    Andy Betteridge 


     




    C2, Potentially dangerous- urgent remedial action required. As I said before. Rented house. Unsupervised use of socket. Anything could happen and cause danger. R.C.D. protection required. Just why wouldn't R.C.D. protection be provided here?


    Z.

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