Single cores outside enclosure

Bare conductors may be installed on insulators … Regulation 521.10.201

Indeed, but as written there's nothing to say 521.10.1 doesn't simultaneously apply - as the bare conductors are unsheathed they (and presumably the insulators) would have to be within trunking (or ducting or conduit).

   - Andy.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

Eh? Where is the fire coming from?

I can play this game too, Graham.

There is an assumption in the regulations that electrical fires can only come from electrical overheating, in the same way, that electric shocks can only come from direct contact with some things at different potentials. This may be a live point and real earth, or both a live and neutral conductor) ignoring 3 phases for the moment. Insulated but not sheathed conductors are not unsafe to touch, they are only dangerous if also damaged, maybe in the touching or a previous incident.

It, therefore, follows that insulated conductors that are not damaged are only dangerous if they can be damaged, so those hidden from contact by position cannot be dangerous. It is also implicit that containment (cable sheath, plastic conduit, accessory boxes) does not need to be conductive to provide mechanical protection where contact is likely.

Electrical fires can only occur if there is serious overheating, and there is inflammable material present and close enough to burn. Overheating is almost always due to poor resistive connections, or faulty appliances such as a toaster that fails to “pop-up”. A cooker fire from the chip pan is not an electrical fire. We protect cables etc. from serious overheating with the CPD, and the design. Whether an AFD can protect against poor connections is far from clear, so this must be the primary cause.

Unsheathed cables themselves are not really “potentially dangerous” but could become so if there is a mechanical incident, but the same could just as well happen if a plastic accessory is smashed. We do not code plastic accessories as C2, and therefore the exposed cables should receive the same treatment and require improvement, C3.

There is a serious logical inconsistency in many of these codings from the books, they do not reflect the danger correctly, and many are a case of “I don't like the look of that”. The fact that a situation does not exactly reflect the regulations does not mean that it must be dangerous, even if a potential danger can be found by imagining some very unlikely scenario. In that way all of life is dangerous, even being in bed. Most people die in bed, does that mean beds are inherently dangerous and should be banned? It certainly means that all kinds of transport should be banned, particularly horses, riding is one of the most dangerous kinds of transport.

This approach is fine but when you find yourself  ‘gripping the bar’ and it is pointed out to you that all documentation available suggests this was an issue, the {insert situation} was entirely preventable had you been sufficiently competent and provided a suitable code for the defect. 
 

A c3 for the photo attached would be entirely inappropriate, it is already in a potentially dangerous condition for several reasons, not simply exposed basic insulation. 
 

Two major things to remember

1, like it or not we live in a very litigious society, Eicr’s are as much about safety as they are risk transfer. 
 

2, Nothing written in an EICR directly compels any action, what posible incentive could exist for not accurately reporting all defects to current thinking? 

On a side note EICR’s are generally only good for loo roll, when reporting defects there ought to be a requirement  to state the actual regulation! 

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)!