This is another poor EICR. Section 715 covers ELV lighting, and nothing special is required in Bathrooms, the items being fully isolated. The inspector was negligent in not determining the type of lighting, and could easily determine if it was mains or ELV. (-10 points). Assuming it was mains, then it is outside the zones so no risk to anyone, particularly the inspector, so the coding was not correct (-20 points). He failed to check if the circuit was actually RCD protected or not, or if he did he failed to code the other circuits affected (probably C3) (-10 points). He did not check for any REQUIRED supplementary bonding with an ohm meter, as bonding is only required if the items are actually not connected via a low resistance, and a good installation may well not have any bonding visible, and looking inside the light switch or fittings should have shown the extra G/Y(-10 points). The IP rating of fittings is dubious, as unless subject to direct splashing none is required, and out of zone this is very unlikely 701.512.2(-10 points).

The conclusion can only be that this inspection is significantly defective, but unfortunately this is far from unusual. I think an improper degree of incompetence was involved. I wonder if a value for R1+R2, or Zs for the bathroom lighting circuit is on the test results, or whether this is even remotely correct? Were the terminal screws inspected? I rather doubt it.

As to fixing the alleged problem, I suggest adding an 30 mA RCD to at least this circuit if none is present, and this can be fitted anywhere outside the bathroom. I detect howls of complaint, but this is perfectly legitimate as a low cost solution. It is amazing that so many understand so little of the actual regulations, particularly those who claim to be Inspectors. How many will immediately want to fit a new CU full of RCBOs?

This is another poor EICR. Section 715 covers ELV lighting, and nothing special is required in Bathrooms, the items being fully isolated. The inspector was negligent in not determining the type of lighting, and could easily determine if it was mains or ELV. (-10 points). Assuming it was mains, then it is outside the zones so no risk to anyone, particularly the inspector, so the coding was not correct (-20 points). He failed to check if the circuit was actually RCD protected or not, or if he did he failed to code the other circuits affected (probably C3) (-10 points). He did not check for any REQUIRED supplementary bonding with an ohm meter, as bonding is only required if the items are actually not connected via a low resistance, and a good installation may well not have any bonding visible, and looking inside the light switch or fittings should have shown the extra G/Y(-10 points). The IP rating of fittings is dubious, as unless subject to direct splashing none is required, and out of zone this is very unlikely 701.512.2(-10 points).

The conclusion can only be that this inspection is significantly defective, but unfortunately this is far from unusual. I think an improper degree of incompetence was involved. I wonder if a value for R1+R2, or Zs for the bathroom lighting circuit is on the test results, or whether this is even remotely correct? Were the terminal screws inspected? I rather doubt it.

As to fixing the alleged problem, I suggest adding an 30 mA RCD to at least this circuit if none is present, and this can be fitted anywhere outside the bathroom. I detect howls of complaint, but this is perfectly legitimate as a low cost solution. It is amazing that so many understand so little of the actual regulations, particularly those who claim to be Inspectors. How many will immediately want to fit a new CU full of RCBOs?