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 2 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 247 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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

E.I.C.R. Limitations and Safety.

Zoomup
I have been recently working in an old house where the P.V.C. insulated wiring dates back to the 50's and early 60s. The owner and I have found many bodges made by the previous owner, like single unsheathed wires used on the mains circuits. Also I have found twin cables with exposed cores and joints made by Screwits under the floor. The joints were just left floating in the air above the ceiling below. These items would not normally have been seen during inspection and testing as many bad joints and wrong use of cable were only discovered when thick glass fibre was moved in the lofts.


But, despite the bad practices used, and unapproved jointing methods, no real dangers were found such as heat damaged cables or shock risks mainly because the offending items were not open to touch or exposed.


This does though show the limitation of an E.I.C.R.



Z.


Z.
Parents
  • 0
    You have realised yourself Z, it is impossible to fully survey an installation without complete dismantling, which is rather counterproductive. However, as you say yourself, nothing was actually dangerous, and it does often strike me that the fascination with mechanical protection in enclosed spaces might be excessive. This is not a limitation as such, it is inevitable unless every floor is taken up, all the roof insulation moved (and not usually put back properly), all the wall chases knocked out to ensure exact compliance, every accessory opened for examination, etc. In principle, we are looking for "degradation or damage" from the original installation, not that there are no deviations from the letter of regulations. This is often forgotten by inexperienced inspectors, it is much better to leave well alone if it is working properly, disturbing everything will inevitably introduce faults, and thus nullify the report.

    The EICR is a report on the condition, as found, and if something is hidden no one would expect it to be found by unnecessary and damaging ripping a property apart. Compare it to the MOT if you like, does the inspector take your brakes apart to check the condition of seals? Of course not, this would probably do more harm than good even on vehicles in otherwise good condition. He does check that the brake pads (which are easily visible) are not worn out but is unlikely to comment on the disks unless seriously damaged. He does not get out a vernier to check the exact thickness, because this is not at all critical. One needs to understand the importance of various potential defects, not just the possible presence. Balance in all things is the watchword here as in most other stuff.
Reply
  • 0
    You have realised yourself Z, it is impossible to fully survey an installation without complete dismantling, which is rather counterproductive. However, as you say yourself, nothing was actually dangerous, and it does often strike me that the fascination with mechanical protection in enclosed spaces might be excessive. This is not a limitation as such, it is inevitable unless every floor is taken up, all the roof insulation moved (and not usually put back properly), all the wall chases knocked out to ensure exact compliance, every accessory opened for examination, etc. In principle, we are looking for "degradation or damage" from the original installation, not that there are no deviations from the letter of regulations. This is often forgotten by inexperienced inspectors, it is much better to leave well alone if it is working properly, disturbing everything will inevitably introduce faults, and thus nullify the report.

    The EICR is a report on the condition, as found, and if something is hidden no one would expect it to be found by unnecessary and damaging ripping a property apart. Compare it to the MOT if you like, does the inspector take your brakes apart to check the condition of seals? Of course not, this would probably do more harm than good even on vehicles in otherwise good condition. He does check that the brake pads (which are easily visible) are not worn out but is unlikely to comment on the disks unless seriously damaged. He does not get out a vernier to check the exact thickness, because this is not at all critical. One needs to understand the importance of various potential defects, not just the possible presence. Balance in all things is the watchword here as in most other stuff.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines