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 13 replies
  • Subscribers 27 subscribers
  • Views 1112 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 waddaya fink?

ebee
I have an EICR which was done for a client prior a house sale.

NICEIC approved contractor.

Part 3 summary states "satisfactory apart from items listed"


Overall assessment SATISFACTORY.


3 items listed in part 6 al of them awarded a C2.


This was given to me buy the buyer who needed it for his solicitor on purchase a few months back.


I have yet to read thru the report yet.


I`d need to ask the buyer`s permission before I offer a copy to Dave Z in his crusade and I might have to redact some details as well.


Initial comments?
Parents
  • 0
    Same with 'basic protection' and 'fault protection'

    I think we need to have room for progress/improvements. Indirect contact was misleading in some circumstances as it really only had ADS in mind (i.e. when some metalwork was inadvertently made live) and sort of ignored the more general problem of ensuring safety when basic insulation fails under other circumstances (e.g. under double/reinforced insulation situations).


    Likewise it's difficult to offer main equipotential bonding as a method of protection against shock when BS 7671 doesn't have any actual performance requirements for it - and as a result a perfectly conforming installation could have lethal voltages between exposed/extraneous conductive parts during a fault (unlike supplementary bonding where there is a requirement to keep voltages differences below 50V if the duration exceeds 5s).


    Certainly not all changes seem to be for the better, but some can me.


       - Andy.
Reply
  • 0
    Same with 'basic protection' and 'fault protection'

    I think we need to have room for progress/improvements. Indirect contact was misleading in some circumstances as it really only had ADS in mind (i.e. when some metalwork was inadvertently made live) and sort of ignored the more general problem of ensuring safety when basic insulation fails under other circumstances (e.g. under double/reinforced insulation situations).


    Likewise it's difficult to offer main equipotential bonding as a method of protection against shock when BS 7671 doesn't have any actual performance requirements for it - and as a result a perfectly conforming installation could have lethal voltages between exposed/extraneous conductive parts during a fault (unlike supplementary bonding where there is a requirement to keep voltages differences below 50V if the duration exceeds 5s).


    Certainly not all changes seem to be for the better, but some can me.


       - Andy.
Children
No Data

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