psychicwarrior said:

if there is none of the 'conformity' recorded (as gkenyon mentioned), or any comment for that matter, then just out of interest, what view and approach would 'you' take please,  if you encountered it when inspecting re: to BS7671  ?

The object of EICR is not to provide a list of compliance issues with the current Edition of BS 7671. The purposes of the periodic inspection & test  is outlined in Regulations 651.1 and 651.3. It is only necessary to list non-compliances with requirements of BS 7671 that give rise to danger.

OK, so one of the problems with SY/CY/YY is that you can't always tell whether it's the power or auxiliary type of cable that's installed if there's nothing marked on the outer sheath - but surely if there is no evidence of 'danger', or issues that might give rise to danger, then that's a Limitation which can be noted?

What happens when inspectors come across other cable types (e.g. PVC/PVC flexible cable) with no markings on the sheath to indicate the manufacturer, CSA actual standard of the cable, its construction, or BASEC approval etc.? Do we just ignore that (constructional standards for cables have required marking for a very long time)?

psychicwarrior said:

edit: to add, encountering it where the cable has been installed as a low voltage fixed install power circuit (protected by an mcb)

Again, similar approach to other unmarked cables supplied from a protective device ... what happens there?

re:non visible markings ... there are plenty of cables where it is not possible to see what's written on it for one reason or another.

in those cases, folk just 'guess' (ok use a bit of experience with it) one supposes ...  i dont know what others do, so what would you do please ?

in the case i noted,  it was a recent-ish EIC, so one would have thought that the designer  was happy to take responsibility for it... even though no note of it on the paper work, so must have thought no issue to use.

psychicwarrior said:

in those cases, folk just 'guess' (ok use a bit of experience with it) one supposes ...  i dont know what others do, so what would you do please ?

Well, as I intimated earlier, it's perhaps a limitation. If there is no evidence of overheating, deterioration, cable damage, the conductors are insulated (and if appropriate sheathed) as necessary, or there is no other safety issue, and the loop impedances appear to be met, I guess all you could (should) do is note the limitation.

Same really as you'd do for a cable in a much older installation, from a time where there were no standards for cables, or the standards have now been withdrawn.

As you say, experience is what's needed here - and a little pragmatism based on the fact there are other circumstances where products are used in (perhaps safe) installations before 511 in its present form appeared in the 'Regs'.

psychicwarrior said:

in the case i noted,  it was a recent-ish EIC, so one would have thought that the designer  was happy to take responsibility for it... even though no note of it on the paper work, so must have thought no issue to use.

Interesting assumption, when it appears the requirements of BS 7671 may not have been met? Under those circumstances, there are other assumptions one could make?

"...Interesting assumption, when it appears ..."

what's an alternative take on it then ... the designer is unlikely to have consciously used it knowing it was unacceptable ... or would they !     Maybe I'm not sure what you are inferring.

psychicwarrior said:

Maybe I'm not sure what you are inferring.

Only that, as in your last post, there are a number of possible reasons everything's not as it should be, for example:

• made a conscious decision, but not aware of the BS 7671 requirement to document
• made a conscious decision, but actively ignored the BS 7671 requirement to document
• selected the cable with the best intentions, but not aware of the BS 7671 requirements for standards
• selected the cable with the best intentions, but ignored the BS 7671 requirements for standards
• there was a very good reason to select the cable, and under those circumstances, thought it was OTT to document
• the designer signing the design section of the EIC wasn't the person who selected the cable, and somehow wasn't aware of its presence
• etc, etc., etc

In reality, there are many reasons why it might have happened, and I'm not going to assume anything, because some of those reasons may unfairly target criticism where none is warranted (or simply, a mistake was made ... and, if it's not dangerous, why worry overly about it?).

"...In reality, there are many reasons why it might have happened, and I'm not going to

assume anything, because some of those reasons may unfairly target criticism where
none is warranted (or simply, a mistake was made ... and, if it's not dangerous, why
worry overly about it?)."

well, I'm with you on that ;  the likelihood of this type of cable  becoming 'dangerous' later is unlikely.

"...In reality, there are many reasons why it might have happened, and I'm not going to

assume anything, because some of those reasons may unfairly target criticism where
none is warranted (or simply, a mistake was made ... and, if it's not dangerous, why
worry overly about it?)."

well, I'm with you on that ;  the likelihood of this type of cable  becoming 'dangerous' later is unlikely.