Single cores outside enclosure

The thing about an EICR Marty is that it is very specific to BS7671. This is important as it is your safety net in many ways. This is why I pointed out on another thread that “out of scope” is your enemy. The transfer of risk depends on two things, 1. That you are specifically asked to comment on a particular risk, and 2. That this “ask” is exactly defined.

For example, it would be necessary to provide evidence that this gland was not noticed by another person who did nothing, that it was noticed by the inspector (plenty of reasons why not available, even deliberately hidden), and that he failed to code it appropriately. The C3 suggested says he saw it but did not see any reason for danger, but did say it needed improvement. It would be very difficult to transfer risk if an accident did happen later, even if the C3 was later suggested it should be a C2. The opinion might be wrong, but circumstances may not have been clear to the inspector, or something else could have changed For example, it could have been dead or ELV or whatever, so what has it to do with electrics or how can it be dangerous? Inspection is simply that, it cannot find all possible problems or faults however hard we try. 

The burden of proof would be “the balance of probabilities” for a civil case or “beyond reasonable doubt” for a criminal one, neither of which is easy to reach. It is not a case of thinking of some scenario and saying this might happen, (which is often present in foolish risk assessments), but at least “this is more likely to happen than not”. This is exactly why the scope MUST be tied down, after all a lightning strike could be blamed for the failure of the electrical installation otherwise (That is considered an act of God BTW)!

The thing about an EICR Marty is that it is very specific to BS7671. This is important as it is your safety net in many ways. This is why I pointed out on another thread that “out of scope” is your enemy. The transfer of risk depends on two things, 1. That you are specifically asked to comment on a particular risk, and 2. That this “ask” is exactly defined.

For example, it would be necessary to provide evidence that this gland was not noticed by another person who did nothing, that it was noticed by the inspector (plenty of reasons why not available, even deliberately hidden), and that he failed to code it appropriately. The C3 suggested says he saw it but did not see any reason for danger, but did say it needed improvement. It would be very difficult to transfer risk if an accident did happen later, even if the C3 was later suggested it should be a C2. The opinion might be wrong, but circumstances may not have been clear to the inspector, or something else could have changed For example, it could have been dead or ELV or whatever, so what has it to do with electrics or how can it be dangerous? Inspection is simply that, it cannot find all possible problems or faults however hard we try. 

The burden of proof would be “the balance of probabilities” for a civil case or “beyond reasonable doubt” for a criminal one, neither of which is easy to reach. It is not a case of thinking of some scenario and saying this might happen, (which is often present in foolish risk assessments), but at least “this is more likely to happen than not”. This is exactly why the scope MUST be tied down, after all a lightning strike could be blamed for the failure of the electrical installation otherwise (That is considered an act of God BTW)!