EICR failed missing trunking?

Andy, I assume from that post about codes that you are fully incapable of a proper EICR by coding things yourself? Those might be the codes given certain circumstances but I think in this case a C3 is perfectly adequate. Those coding books are less use than an udder on a Bull and are one of the reasons that inadequately trained people think that they can carry out an EICR! Why do you keep quoting them (not for the first time) in order to justify your comments? Assess the situation yourself. Make a reasonable conclusion based on your own knowledge of both the regulations and a reasonable assessment of any danger present. In this case trunking has been demanded to correct the situation, why is everyone trying to find other possible faults as well? All we know is that the clips are broken, in my view because they were probably inadequate from day one and the shed has stored things which have pushed the cable breaking the clips. If you look carefully you will see that the spacing is far too wide, the clips are at odd angles and so will never have been very good. Conclusion: probably not done by a competent electrician, look for more serious defects like loose or missing earth connections, incorrect polarity etc, excessive Zs, no RCD protection at the socket (which is probably also not fixed properly). That is a proper job. It may well get a C2 after that, but I would say "cable a bit loose squire, can I add a few clips for you"? Result: a couple of minutes of work and a happy customer, because he gets a satisfactory report (assuming the rest is OK).

I have only done four EICRs during the last Covid lockdown that started January 2021, two landlords EICRs in empty properties, one house sale EICR and one landlords EICR in an occupied property for my Godfather.


I cannot see why I should be expected to go around doing landlords EICRs in occupied homes during the Covid lockdown, apart from that I don’t have much enthusiasm when it comes to landlords EICRs.


There is occasionally a rental property where you can go and not find any issues, but generally they are full of #### like there is in the original posters photo, which is clear unacceptable to any dim wit.


So then instead of just being able to sit at my desk at fire through the report and say it is satisfactory I end up going through and justifying every observation. I do have the benefit of using the NAPIT Desktop certificate software, though like most things in life it comes at a price that means you have to use it enough to justify the expenditure.


So when I Code an issue on the Schedule of Inspections it brings up a dialogue box with a selection of observations, I can then select one send it pre-populates the observations, which I can then edit and make job specific using the Codebreakers book as a reference.


It takes time and a bit of patience, but the customer ends up with a report on which all the observations are referenced to The Wiring Regulations.


I gave you observations and references in the previous post, which you can argue about if you want to, but remember as a general rule of thumb, if it looks like #### it probably is ####.

I suspect that the use of easy-fill software is not helping. So Joe, the inspector, correctly identifies an unsupported cable. He then gets a drop-down list and picks the closest fit. He does not even think about BS 7671 and the code 'cos it is done for him.


The problem, as we know, is that proper I&T involves a bit more.

Remember that the key word in a code 2 designation is “potential”. Who would have thought that an unsecured cable in Rosepark Nursing Home would have resulted in the deaths of 14 residents? Had the loose cable been identified then perhaps it would have been given a code 3 by one of those competent inspectors that only look at what is rather than what could be. 

In the photograph in this post, looking at what is will inevitably result in a code 3 but looking at what could be may move the risk upwards. So, if the cable connects to a socket, given that damage has already occurred then it is reasonable to assume that the loose wire could be dislodged sufficiently to result in the terminations being yanked from the socket.

When we first got married my wife and I bought a terraced house not far from where we are now, over the years two sheds have burnt down behind houses in that street and on both occasions the fire brigade had to attend.


The one timber shed was attached to a timber garage that had two cars in it that the guy was repairing and he was using the attached shed as a workshop.


The other the kids burnt down playing with matches.


On both occasions the fire brigade had to drag hoses through neighbours homes to get access, because they couldn’t get the fire tenders up the rear access roads and on both occasions they nearly became major incidents with all the homes on one side of the street at risk of bring engulfed.


Why on earth do people look at photo and say “it’s just a shed, it will be okay”?


The guy whose shed was burnt down by the kids playing with matches didn’t arrive home until after the fire brigade had left, he went into the house and had a cup of tea but his wife and kids did not tell him what had happened, he only found out when he went to put his bike away ?


I may have coded the issues as C3, but the starting point is C2 and should the issue be downgraded to being an acceptable risk is what needs to be considered.

OK, I give up is the other end of the cable actually connected to anything because the end nearest the ceiling certainly isn't so either it's an unused cable of should be simply disconected as it doesn't appear to be doing anything.