davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

One might find that the environment is not aligned to the components selected, but that is not dangerous as such is it? Comments and a C3 appear to be indicated. If the situation is actually dangerous (water pouring over equipment for example) then we have C1 or C2. In principle, I do not see the problem. An EICR is not an exercise to find non-compliance with some standard, it is exclusive to BS7671, although many people attempt to expand it, usually to charge money. See 651.2.

Codes aside as no two inspectors agree and panels are not code-able to BS7671 in any case. 

When panels are built they require CE/UKCA marking to confirm compliance with the relevant standards and documentation in the tech file, in the absence of all that BS7671 doesn't really offer much guidance.

In strict EICR terms all we could really do is FI for A N Other to verify it is safe. 

We cannot verify the equipment as in any particular condition as we have no markings or documentation  to suggest either way. 
 

In the case of this post, the original designer may well have decided Pollution Cat 2 devices are perfectly adequate, we would just have no way of knowing. 

The other option would be to verify the equipment meets the required standard 60204 / 61439 as the examples given,  but as stated this is far outside the scope of 7671.
 

We could simplify the question and ask ‘what if a standard consumer unit was installed in such an environment? ‘
 

Most inspectors would then be fairly confident at coding this as not within manufacturers specification for the equipment, again the codes here would vary wildly depending on a persons knowledge, ability to assess the risk and maybe even their own/insurers risk profiles. 

Fun and games!

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

One might find that the environment is not aligned to the components selected, but that is not dangerous as such is it? Comments and a C3 appear to be indicated. If the situation is actually dangerous (water pouring over equipment for example) then we have C1 or C2. In principle, I do not see the problem. An EICR is not an exercise to find non-compliance with some standard, it is exclusive to BS7671, although many people attempt to expand it, usually to charge money. See 651.2.

Codes aside as no two inspectors agree and panels are not code-able to BS7671 in any case. 

When panels are built they require CE/UKCA marking to confirm compliance with the relevant standards and documentation in the tech file, in the absence of all that BS7671 doesn't really offer much guidance.

In strict EICR terms all we could really do is FI for A N Other to verify it is safe. 

We cannot verify the equipment as in any particular condition as we have no markings or documentation  to suggest either way. 
 

In the case of this post, the original designer may well have decided Pollution Cat 2 devices are perfectly adequate, we would just have no way of knowing. 

The other option would be to verify the equipment meets the required standard 60204 / 61439 as the examples given,  but as stated this is far outside the scope of 7671.
 

We could simplify the question and ask ‘what if a standard consumer unit was installed in such an environment? ‘
 

Most inspectors would then be fairly confident at coding this as not within manufacturers specification for the equipment, again the codes here would vary wildly depending on a persons knowledge, ability to assess the risk and maybe even their own/insurers risk profiles. 

Fun and games!