This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

EICR failed missing trunking?

Former Community Member
Former Community Member

Hi,



I’ve just had an EICR done last week, One item I do not understand and would need an electrician or someone to help please. the EICR report says “MISSING TRUNKING WITH WIRES NOT SUPPORTED C2 SHED.” The cable is clipped on the wood wall in the shed. There are no exposed wires. And the shed is not on escape routes. Does cable need to be in trunking in order to comply with the electrical wire regulation? Is the code 2 correct for this situation?  please see photo.1ff9527a633c65202618bef88f7b0919-original-shed.jpg



Thank you for help


Parents
  • I am going to point something out Andy. Your exaggerated view of danger is ridiculous, "someone could get entangled putting their bike away". This is not the reason why we have the cable fixing regulation to be fire resistant, it is premature collapse In the case of FIRE. It is not that someone could become trapped and consequently burned to death (you have to be joking) putting their bike away. The cable could be inconvenient but nothing more. Stop trying to justify unreasonable coding of a defect, or perhaps that is your own "Modus Operandi"? No one here likes it but C3 is fair to the customer. He then knows it should be fixed, and may well call at Screwfix, but most of the good inspectors would fix minor snags anyway (after pointing them out to the customer) in exactly the same way that no Garage would not change a failed bulb if they wanted any kind of repeat custom. Would you leave a loose connection and just code it C2, or would you tighten it?


    I was asked why I am collecting data on duff EICRs, the reason is that I serve on a committee that is aware of the qualification deficit for EICRs and is in a position to make some progress in improving the problem. All changes to anything need a solid case for change, and it tends to be a long process but is (unlike handjob) really driven by supporting data. We need to fully understand the problem and as far as possible see why it is happening. It is not a case of any member's opinion, but of proof. Thanks to all those who have sent me EICRs and particularly those who have provided supporting photos and information.


    Kind regards

    David
Reply
  • I am going to point something out Andy. Your exaggerated view of danger is ridiculous, "someone could get entangled putting their bike away". This is not the reason why we have the cable fixing regulation to be fire resistant, it is premature collapse In the case of FIRE. It is not that someone could become trapped and consequently burned to death (you have to be joking) putting their bike away. The cable could be inconvenient but nothing more. Stop trying to justify unreasonable coding of a defect, or perhaps that is your own "Modus Operandi"? No one here likes it but C3 is fair to the customer. He then knows it should be fixed, and may well call at Screwfix, but most of the good inspectors would fix minor snags anyway (after pointing them out to the customer) in exactly the same way that no Garage would not change a failed bulb if they wanted any kind of repeat custom. Would you leave a loose connection and just code it C2, or would you tighten it?


    I was asked why I am collecting data on duff EICRs, the reason is that I serve on a committee that is aware of the qualification deficit for EICRs and is in a position to make some progress in improving the problem. All changes to anything need a solid case for change, and it tends to be a long process but is (unlike handjob) really driven by supporting data. We need to fully understand the problem and as far as possible see why it is happening. It is not a case of any member's opinion, but of proof. Thanks to all those who have sent me EICRs and particularly those who have provided supporting photos and information.


    Kind regards

    David
Children
No Data