Would you recommend a C3 for no visibility of the earth spike/plate?

gkenyon said:

Better to say you can't see it and don't know, than assume it's there?

Good points, and taking into account Mapj1's post about testing the Earthing correctly, I'm tending toward a C3/ recommendation to improve. How about buried grid earthing systems?

There is no way of checking the connection of the cable / strap clamped to the buried grid, as it is a metre below ground, and I don't think anyone would suggest that is a C2 if the testing shows the connection is still good.

Of course, the typical UK earth spike/rod with clamp on connection is not as good as the bolted on strap on a grid earthing system, but it is not the sort of connection that will come loose if not touched. If ,however, foilage surrounds it, or people can walk across it/wind moves it, then I'd be more inclined to make it a FI, rather than C2. C2 is potentially dangerous, FI , basically, says 'I dont know, so lets look deeper into it'. They both amount to the same thing, a 'failed' EICR, but with a little digging, the connection may be found, and the FI remedied if all is good, whereas the C2 makes it look like there was a fault with the install, where the Inspector did not know, and is guessing.

alanblaby said:

I'd be more inclined to make it a FI, rather than C2. C2 is potentially dangerous, FI , basically, says 'I dont know, so lets look deeper into it'. They both amount to the same thing, a 'failed

Good point. I note that Best Practice Guide 4 issue 7.2 is recommending that FI codes should be unnecessary in domestic installations and therefore do not cite any examples. But I agree that this issue is a good example for retaining the FI codes. 

Just add a new ConduDisc with new cable.  Label up the cable at CU (Consumer Unit) as Earthing and VERY importantly state location of ConduDisc (other brands are available).  Discs are more favourable to spikes depending on location, eg Central london driving a spike 2 meters into the ground you COULD hit a buried service.  This will then allow you to STATE Earth Rod/Spike/Plate present and its location and impedance as a matter of Fact rather than just a measurement of impedance with unknown Fault Paths.  The Caveat.... Consider the next person, make sure that the Labels are good/clear/concise and that there is clear access to the CU/DB and Earthing system for future work or inspections.  Eg Under floor boards with no access hatch is a No...No.  This will negate for assumptions on the Earthing, if it is present or what format/arrangement it has.

With the above being said some people will argue that an EICR/Periodic Inspect is just that.  An inspect followed by Test.  This will be used as the basis for a report and/or certificate.  Any remedial/s is a separate task or set of tasks for a future date.  

gkenyon said:

Better to say you can't see it and don't know, than assume it's there?

There seems to be something of a consensus that FI is appropriate. Is that not passing the buck?

Why not a limitation? e.g., "The earth rod was not inspected, but the impedance to earth was within satisfactory limits."

Model EICR form, page 519 of the Big Brown Book: Section D deals with concealed cables, etc.

Over the page: "FI - Further investigation required without delay." Carpets and suspended wooden floors with boards could be disturbed, but not the tiled kitchen floor on concrete slabs on concrete beams.

So, if you cannot investigate, and your private landlord wants a tick in the box, what do you do? Can the "electrical safety standards" be met if the earth rod is concealed?

Now Graham is going to remind us that only a judge can answer that question.

Chris Pearson said:

There seems to be something of a consensus that FI is appropriate. Is that not passing the buck?

Why not a limitation? e.g., "The earth rod was not inspected, but the impedance to earth was within satisfactory limits."

I'd be going for C3 if the testing showed the connection is good. The FI is the worst case scenario in my view (OK, it's better than C2, as I dont think it warrants a C2 if it tests well).

Many people are risk averse, and will always err on the side of caution, but, once you take into account all factors, I fail to see how it could be classed as C2 if the tests are good, so FI should be the worst classification it is given, and on balance, should be a C3. There are many connections that are not accessible,but as you say, a LIM, with a note to explain it, would suffice, though I would still be going for C3, as the EC is more important than an hidden JB in an attic.

So some say code 2, others, code 3, others FI others, Lim. I would not argue with any determination made by a competent inspector providing it is justified.

We don’t have any company policy on codes to be given. The guys are encouraged to carefully consider every issue given the situation and ensure that their deliberations are justified. They sign their name to the report and if you read the rather legalistic declaration above the signatory box, it is evident that the role of the individual inspector carries significant individual responsibility.
My role is to QA the reports and the processes employed. Generally, if the EICR is for a dwelling, I would encourage reference to BPG 7 without considering it to be chiselled in stone. 
We also need to be mindful that the coding structure set out in Appendix 6 is a rather blunt instrument for communicating a concern to a client. 
Whilst Chapter 65 of 7671 makes reference to the templates in Appendix 6, there is nothing in the chapter that requires inspectors to identify anything other than issues that might give rise to danger.