Videos of EICRs on Youtube

One thought is that I am quite glad I do not get involved in domestic wiring professionally these days.

Certainly the second installation is dog rough, but the question was about the inspections, and we do not really see what I would consider a by the book inspection.  

Much as it is fun to plug in socket testers and not be sure what fault you are dealing with, there are better ways. ~I hope there is more some more technical stuff being done in addition to that recorded on video, and I rather hope some of that was for the camera, as the operation appears a bit gung-ho.

Equally I agree with comments that at least some parts of that one would be easier to recommend to redo than to sort out.

Edit

The first one looks clean. Most of his observations are reasonable. There may not really be a need to change the CU, but it may be an easy thing to recommend. Not sure I'd even contemplate lifting the bonding at the PME head for a test,   but I suppose there are cases where it makes sense.  I may differ on  how serious the bathroom light is, but I am not there and cannot see it.

Mike.

Plug in socket testers that buzz are handy when identifying circuits during an EICR inspection, but can completely confuse the issue when you’re fault finding.

psychicwarrior: 
 

Zoomup: 
 

psychicwarrior: 
 

AJJewsbury: 
 

if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD

That's part of the issue though - when a socket is feeding things outside the user is more likely to use long extension leads and then it's hard to ensure that Zs will be adequate for L-PE faults at the far end (even given the 13A fuse). Even these days not all garden equipment is Class II.

  - Andy.

Agreed :-) Because there is a socket that may or may not be near a door where someone may or may not plug in a long lead appliance that [they state] may or may not be used outdoors (and who is responsible for any of those) and may or may not be well maintained or may or may not be used appropriately, then the installation is thus unsafe/unsatisfactory for continued use … unless/until the face is changed to RCD, or the circuit is provided RCD protection, or the board changed; but a plug in RCD device is not acceptable.  I'm being obtuse.

It would be disappointing if anyone thinks this, but one must not take this as raging against improving safety or lacking in the ability to appreciate that a non-faulty RCD is a huge improvement generally speaking, which is accepted. It is a consideration on whether a [whole] installation is reported as no longer safe for continued use, when it was previously and probably still is and perhaps depending on how it is ‘driven’ . Everything can be potentially dangerous if one searches hard enough and H&S is an interfering, misused and abused beast at times in the ‘wrong’ hands.

Perhaps if that [socket for use outdoors no RCD] was the only issue, one might just change the face and have done with it and issue a ‘satisfactory’. Of course no RCD anywhere makes alterations somewhat tricky too going forward.

Any way, regardless of what ‘we’ think, there does need to be a consistent well defined set of  standards for all to consistently follow for inspections, whatever that ends up being.  I rest.

Note what Chris said earlier

 

“411.3.3 mandates RCD protection for all sockets in dwellings (> 32 A is hardly domestic) and mobile equipment for use outdoors. Mobile equipment includes things on wheels (e.g. pressure washer, lawnmower) and well as portable equipment - anything which may be carried, not just hedge trimmers.”

 

Z.

Just so i can rest easy; for clarification: "note" in relation, please, to what (bit or all) i said, or “note” about [retrospective] application/consideration during condition inspection outcomes (not about verification of new work) as I thought this was mainly about. 

The requirements of B.S. 7671 for domestic installations as referred to in the two videos in post number 1 applies. This applies to Inspection and Testing and the issuing of an E.I.C.R. and the need for R.C.D. protection in domestic installations. Also 411.3.4 applies to lighting circuits. And 701.411.3.3 covers the need for 30mA R.C.D.s to protect certain locations such as locations containing a bath or shower.

Z.

Sparkingchip: You seem to be somewhat shy of telling us about your qualifications, perhaps I am rather braver (and perhaps qualified) than you expected? I would be the last person to suggest that I know everything or that my opinion is always right. I do suggest that evidence is the way to make assessments of anything, particularly risk.

As a direct question to everyone, do you honestly think that the quality of EICR results is fair to the customer, from your own observations? Do you find them an effective source of work? What would you say if the inspection process was separated from the repairs of the same installation? This is the case for MOTs in Northern Ireland, it seems to work well there.

I am worried enough about the state of domestic EICRs that I stay right out of them - fortunately I concentrate on commercial and don't need domestic. The state of domestic EICRs definitely needs addressing somehow as they are more often than not - appalling and there's loads of unnecessary work being done - some companies and electricians are having an absolute field day - making money left right and centre that perhaps they should not be doing…….. 

I'd like to see every EICR carried out on a national data base - no idea how to pay for that though………..so that every single person that signs off the EICR is searchable, the person taking responsibility for the EICR - and every EICR carried out by that person is available for veiwing at least. 

Perhaps file them so that - if they belong to a governing body - this shows up - which can provide one level of reassurance, and perhaps a first point of contact for disagreements - by fellow peers at least. 

Its all about the money  and logistics here which would probably make this impossible and so expensive as to make it un-doable. 

I havn't watched the EICR videos as I am limited to 4G today I'm afraid, so cant comment on those

Zoomup: 
 

psychicwarrior: 
 

Zoomup: 
 

psychicwarrior: 
 

AJJewsbury: 
 

if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD

That's part of the issue though - when a socket is feeding things outside the user is more likely to use long extension leads and then it's hard to ensure that Zs will be adequate for L-PE faults at the far end (even given the 13A fuse). Even these days not all garden equipment is Class II.

  - Andy.

Agreed :-) Because there is a socket that may or may not be near a door where someone may or may not plug in a long lead appliance that [they state] may or may not be used outdoors (and who is responsible for any of those) and may or may not be well maintained or may or may not be used appropriately, then the installation is thus unsafe/unsatisfactory for continued use … unless/until the face is changed to RCD, or the circuit is provided RCD protection, or the board changed; but a plug in RCD device is not acceptable.  I'm being obtuse.

It would be disappointing if anyone thinks this, but one must not take this as raging against improving safety or lacking in the ability to appreciate that a non-faulty RCD is a huge improvement generally speaking, which is accepted. It is a consideration on whether a [whole] installation is reported as no longer safe for continued use, when it was previously and probably still is and perhaps depending on how it is ‘driven’ . Everything can be potentially dangerous if one searches hard enough and H&S is an interfering, misused and abused beast at times in the ‘wrong’ hands.

Perhaps if that [socket for use outdoors no RCD] was the only issue, one might just change the face and have done with it and issue a ‘satisfactory’. Of course no RCD anywhere makes alterations somewhat tricky too going forward.

Any way, regardless of what ‘we’ think, there does need to be a consistent well defined set of  standards for all to consistently follow for inspections, whatever that ends up being.  I rest.

Note what Chris said earlier

 

“411.3.3 mandates RCD protection for all sockets in dwellings (> 32 A is hardly domestic) and mobile equipment for use outdoors. Mobile equipment includes things on wheels (e.g. pressure washer, lawnmower) and well as portable equipment - anything which may be carried, not just hedge trimmers.”

 

Z.

Just so i can rest easy; for clarification: "note" in relation, please, to what (bit or all) i said, or “note” about [retrospective] application/consideration during condition inspection outcomes (not about verification of new work) as I thought this was mainly about. 

The requirements of B.S. 7671 for domestic installations as referred to in the two videos in post number 1 applies. This applies to Inspection and Testing and the issuing of an E.I.C.R. and the need for R.C.D. protection in domestic installations. Also 411.3.4 applies to lighting circuits. And 701.411.3.3 covers the need for 30mA R.C.D.s to protect certain locations such as locations containing a bath or shower.

 

Z.

 

 

651.2  Note 2  is pertinent too and always has been hasn't it.

We are not talking about construction, to which working to Regs would apply. Periodic Inspection, whilst conducting it to current Regs as a basis, requires a certain amount of judgement does it not. Whether one aspect flunks a whole installation (such as no RCD for a socket near a door, a  C2 if ‘you’ like and as some advocate and not a C3 .. but other sockets elsewhere are ok ) is what is at the back of this thread isn't it (perhaps Ive gone off at a tangent)  - is it really all unsatisfactory for continued use until addressed (by a plug in RCD, not :-) )

I dont know if electric installations are different in principle to motor vehicles, but the improvements in modern cars do not make an older ones automatically unsatisfactory to continue to drive and there are huge safety issues for those ordinary persons if certain events compound in the process of operating it.  Introduction of seatbelts, better brakes, airbags etc … though fitting those would be a huge improvement if feasible. 

That's me done on this issue now.  Thank you for the input though Z.  Enjoyable.

Btw, this post/thread ‘quote’ formatting approach looks really poor on my terminal.

psychicwarrior: 
 

Zoomup: 
 

psychicwarrior: 
 

Zoomup: 
 

psychicwarrior: 
 

AJJewsbury: 
 

if the protective device would activate in the Regs requisite time, what does it matter if there is no RCD

That's part of the issue though - when a socket is feeding things outside the user is more likely to use long extension leads and then it's hard to ensure that Zs will be adequate for L-PE faults at the far end (even given the 13A fuse). Even these days not all garden equipment is Class II.

  - Andy.

Agreed :-) Because there is a socket that may or may not be near a door where someone may or may not plug in a long lead appliance that [they state] may or may not be used outdoors (and who is responsible for any of those) and may or may not be well maintained or may or may not be used appropriately, then the installation is thus unsafe/unsatisfactory for continued use … unless/until the face is changed to RCD, or the circuit is provided RCD protection, or the board changed; but a plug in RCD device is not acceptable.  I'm being obtuse.

It would be disappointing if anyone thinks this, but one must not take this as raging against improving safety or lacking in the ability to appreciate that a non-faulty RCD is a huge improvement generally speaking, which is accepted. It is a consideration on whether a [whole] installation is reported as no longer safe for continued use, when it was previously and probably still is and perhaps depending on how it is ‘driven’ . Everything can be potentially dangerous if one searches hard enough and H&S is an interfering, misused and abused beast at times in the ‘wrong’ hands.

Perhaps if that [socket for use outdoors no RCD] was the only issue, one might just change the face and have done with it and issue a ‘satisfactory’. Of course no RCD anywhere makes alterations somewhat tricky too going forward.

Any way, regardless of what ‘we’ think, there does need to be a consistent well defined set of  standards for all to consistently follow for inspections, whatever that ends up being.  I rest.

Note what Chris said earlier

 

“411.3.3 mandates RCD protection for all sockets in dwellings (> 32 A is hardly domestic) and mobile equipment for use outdoors. Mobile equipment includes things on wheels (e.g. pressure washer, lawnmower) and well as portable equipment - anything which may be carried, not just hedge trimmers.”

 

Z.

Just so i can rest easy; for clarification: "note" in relation, please, to what (bit or all) i said, or “note” about [retrospective] application/consideration during condition inspection outcomes (not about verification of new work) as I thought this was mainly about. 

The requirements of B.S. 7671 for domestic installations as referred to in the two videos in post number 1 applies. This applies to Inspection and Testing and the issuing of an E.I.C.R. and the need for R.C.D. protection in domestic installations. Also 411.3.4 applies to lighting circuits. And 701.411.3.3 covers the need for 30mA R.C.D.s to protect certain locations such as locations containing a bath or shower.

 

Z.

 

 

651.2  Note 2  is pertinent too and always has been hasn't it.

We are not talking about construction, to which working to Regs would apply. Periodic Inspection, whilst conducting it to current Regs as a basis, requires a certain amount of judgement does it not. Whether one aspect flunks a whole installation (such as no RCD for a socket near a door, a  C2 if ‘you’ like and as some advocate and not a C3 .. but other sockets elsewhere are ok ) is what is at the back of this thread isn't it (perhaps Ive gone off at a tangent)  - is it really all unsatisfactory for continued use until addressed (by a plug in RCD, not :-) )

I dont know if electric installations are different in principle to motor vehicles, but the improvements in modern cars do not make an older ones automatically unsatisfactory to continue to drive and there are huge safety issues for those ordinary persons if certain events compound in the process of operating it.  Introduction of seatbelts, better brakes, airbags etc … though fitting those would be a huge improvement if feasible. 

That's me done on this issue now.  Thank you for the input though Z.  Enjoyable.

Btw, this post/thread ‘quote’ formatting approach looks really poor on my terminal.

Don't forget 651.2 (i), 651.2 (v) and 651.2 (vi).

and the prime directive 120.1. and also 131.1.

Z.

I have all the relevant qualifications for the work I carry out.

Ah, so none eh? That is the state of the industry.

I assume that “Industry Guidance” comes from vested interests somewhere, be it the IET, NICEIC accessory manufacturers, or whatever. It might be in those “coding books” which are not a substitute for skill or analysis of relative risk. That is the job of the properly skilled and competent Inspector because every situation is different.

A few years ago (probably quite a few now) the NICEIC/Electrical Safety First's code-list was considered and commented upon by the committee for GN3 before publication … and all the other lists of suggested codes seem to be based more or less on the same principles. Vested or not, it seems not an unreasonable approach to encouraging consistency across the industry.

  - Andy.