Electrician fined for EICR.

Zoomup: 
 

 I have just carried out an inspection and test on a small two bedroomed  bungalow electrics of about the same age as the one highlighted in the newspaper report. Red and black conductors. A very good quality Crabtree on peak consumer unit with M.C.B.s, A very good off-peak Crabtree consumer unit as well, also with M.C.B.s. A very professional installation. Good P.M.E. earthing and bonding. (Although strictly speaking the water bond is unnecessary as the main water supply is in plastic pipe.

C2s. No R.C.D. protection at all.

Ring final has a broken C.P.C. and is not continuous.

Safe for continued use? Perhaps by a careful instructed person.

Overall condition? Unsatisfactory for continued use.

Oh, and it took me over half a day.

Z.

 

That’s the way it should be, but others will argue it’s not a C2 for the lack of RCD protection.

Zoomup: 
I have just carried out an inspection and test on a small two bedroomed  bungalow electrics of about the same age as the one highlighted in the newspaper report. Red and black conductors. A very good quality Crabtree on peak consumer unit with M.C.B.s, A very good off-peak Crabtree consumer unit as well, also with M.C.B.s. A very professional installation. Good P.M.E. earthing and bonding. (Although strictly speaking the water bond is unnecessary as the main water supply is in plastic pipe.

C2s. No R.C.D. protection at all.

Ring final has a broken C.P.C. and is not continuous.

Safe for continued use? Perhaps by a careful instructed person.

Overall condition? Unsatisfactory for continued use.

Oh, and it took me over half a day.

Half a day! You need to speed up if you want to make a living. ?

No broken CPCs chez Pearson 'cos they have all been twisted together. I have found the odd broken live conductor (not all chez Pearson), but I struggle to see how one could come loose and just flap about in a back box. That might trip with a metal back box, but not with a surface-mounted plastic one or a plasterboard box.

As always. Tom, you love to deliberately misunderstand a statement, don't you? ??

The current version of the 2391 is NOT a rigorous assessment of competence. The multi-guess questions are predictable and pretty widely known and most people taking the exam, despite having exactly ZERO experience, pass it first time. It is, therefore, a poor indicator of actual knowledge. 

Sparkingchip: 
 

Zoomup: 
 

 I have just carried out an inspection and test on a small two bedroomed  bungalow electrics of about the same age as the one highlighted in the newspaper report. Red and black conductors. A very good quality Crabtree on peak consumer unit with M.C.B.s, A very good off-peak Crabtree consumer unit as well, also with M.C.B.s. A very professional installation. Good P.M.E. earthing and bonding. (Although strictly speaking the water bond is unnecessary as the main water supply is in plastic pipe.

C2s. No R.C.D. protection at all.

Ring final has a broken C.P.C. and is not continuous.

Safe for continued use? Perhaps by a careful instructed person.

Overall condition? Unsatisfactory for continued use.

Oh, and it took me over half a day.

Z.

 

 

That’s the way it should be, but others will argue it’s not a C2 for the lack of RCD protection.

I tend to follow the 16th for RCD protection with a strong recommendation for updating as do the NICEIC but NAPIT follow the C2 route which basically condemns many pre 2008 domestic consumer units to landfill. 

The question has to be “How is a correctly Earthed installation now potentially dangerous?”.  I suggest that it is not, the only danger available is from improper use or faulty appliances. The correct way to overcome the alleged potential problem is to discuss it with the customer, and suggest 3 outcomes:

Do nothing

Add an RCD in the Tails

Replace the CU, with potentially RCBOs or split board

Obviously, the cost of each is part of their decision, as is potential disruption of their life which for an old person can be very stressful. The use of a C2 is very debatable because the danger is not from the fixed wiring installation itself, but due to external problems and thus is out of scope for an EICR. I agree that an RCD may improve overall household safety, although nothing like as much as some would claim, but this is up to the householder, not the electrician. In my view, it should remain as a C3, you have done your job to inspect and C3 advises an improvement. You also need to realise that if you change the CU it should be part of your job to decide if the rest of the installation will last a reasonable period, say 30 years, and whether BS7671 changes in that period will invalidate the change you have made, perhaps with amendment 2?

The open-circuit Earth conductor on the ring is interesting, did you locate the fault with your Earth loop test at every point? 

Apparently the installation in question was installed to the 14th or 15th Edition, so if it hasn’t been updated had no RCD protection at all.

I took advice on coding an installation like this in a third floor flat without any outdoor access that had not been altered at all, I spent a considerable amount of time on the phone to the NAPIT Technical Helpline, I passed it as safe to use, BUT the list of observations and recommendations for improvements is considerable. 

It felt wrong “passing” it, but it was considered safe at the time of installation, anyone reading the EICR should really be able to see I consider it is time it is updated.

I don’t know why people knock the NAPIT codebreakers book, read the list of contributors it’s pretty impressive, in addition they gauged opinions of members at trade association meetings, it’s not the work of one person expressing their personal opinions, there was a hell of a lot of consultation with knowledge and experienced people, including me ?

The issue here being, you have to put all concerns on the EICR so the person receiving the report can decide what if anything they want to do about them.

I know that in the last eighteen months three of the landlords EICRs I completed have been used to sell the properties, I reply to any questions by saying that I wrote on the EICR that they were for landlords safety inspections as stated on the report, not for the sale of the property, because the observations should be the same either way.

Steve Briggs: 
 

As always. Tom, you love to deliberately misunderstand a statement, don't you? ??

The current version of the 2391 is NOT a rigorous assessment of competence. The multi-guess questions are predictable and pretty widely known and most people taking the exam, despite having exactly ZERO experience, pass it first time. It is, therefore, a poor indicator of actual knowledge. 

 

How can you say I deliberately misunderstand a statement? What an idiot you are! I don't get involved with long posts' so how can that dribble, of a statement, be correct?

SO, now you can show me where I have ‘DELIBERATELY MISUNDERSTOOD A STATEMENT!' Where, if you're referring to my question to you, have I done this elsewhere, on this forum???

My question is… so what do you suggest instead of the 2391?