EICR and RCD's. Is it a C2 or C3?

[westward10]

You do not base findings in an EICR predicting the actions of a child. Your findings are based upon BS7671 which does not differentiate between a child and an adult.

 

[bill01803]

According to the tick sheet there is supplementary bonding in the bathroom so no rcd required there. There is also IR values in L-N column, so everything got disconnected, all lamps removed etc to preform this test - I don't think so.
I would complain to NAPIT as the standard of the report is poor with unwarranted C2s.
All said though a board upgrade is a good recommend.

 

[Risteard]

According to the tick sheet there is supplementary bonding in the bathroom so no rcd required there. There is also IR values in L-N column, so everything got disconnected, all lamps removed etc to preform this test - I don't think so.
I would complain to NAPIT as the standard of the report is poor with unwarranted C2s.
All said though a board upgrade is a good recommend.

Supplementary bonding does not remove the requirement for RCD protection of bathroom circuits. 30mA RCD protection of bathroom circuits may well remove the requirement for supplementary bonding though.

 

[Richsand007]

Without personally inspecting the property it’s difficult to know what has been discovered or missed by the previous inspection. I may issues a code 2, if for example,
1. Socket installed too close to a sink which can potentially be splashed
2. Any signed of water ingress
3. TT earthing system have no RCD protection
4. Outside socket (balconied) or potential to plug in and use an device outside.
5. High Zs reading not protected by RCD
6. No mechanical protected for cables (concealed <50mm, in metal framed partition, or otherwise)
7. Socket within 3m of zone 1
Or any other general safety conserns that want a risk assessment for admission of RCD (reg 411.3.3)

The fact that it’s probably got code 3 5 years ago and the recommendation goes ignored. Most people translate c3 to satisfactory and just ignore then until they get worse or C2s.

 

[MG201]

Just wait till u get it tested again in 5 years and they put C2 no AFDD’s on bedroom circuits :0

 

[Baddegg]

If you have the eicr from 5 years previous did the spark ask to see it? As he’s ticked date of last inspection unknown but you say 5 years?

 

[MG201]

Would it not be a c3 for sockets not exceeding 32A and a C2 for cables concealed within wall, that’s according to the NAPIT CODEBREAKERS

 

[MG201]

No mention of BATHROOM LIGHT IP RATIng

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Supplementary bonding does not remove the requirement for RCD protection of bathroom circuits. 30mA RCD protection of bathroom circuits may well remove the requirement for supplementary bonding though.

The tick sheet says there is RCD protection for the bathroom circuits.

 

[MG201]

The tick sheet says there is RCD protection for the bathroom circuits.

Q1 it says u have 10 mmm main tails these are usually 25 or 16 min
If they are 10mm this is a C2 as they are undersized
Q2 report says u have AFDDs and surge protection
Defo not
Q3 did he inspect below the floors and above ceilings
Q4 did he carry out R1+ R2 tests as the numbers are exactly ZS-ZE
Q5 cable type 1 on report there is no type 1 it should be A
The values on the report are wrong 5.88 ??
You should send that report to NAPIT and ask for their comment and if possible post the response on the forum,,
The quality of testing is always a question raised ,
There is no rcd test results on his results
And he says there is rcd test notifications labels

 

[MG201]

Thank you all and everyone for their comments.
I won't comment whether I am a 'greedy landlord', I certainly
don't wish to be taken advantage off. Equally I don't think I take advantage of others.
Re-capping:-
1) 2nd Floor flat in a block built NEW in 1997.
2) Five years ago I have a satisfactory EICR.
3) Now I have a C2 (Potentially Dangerous). This rating can be changed as I have a quotation to "fit a new fuseboard to meet current regulation" - as written by the electrician. A new fuseboard solves my problem?

Logic question - Why is it a C2 if RCD's are NOT mandatory given it was satisfactory five years ago? Why wasn't it a C2 five years ago?

Thanks everyone again.

Please read my last post send that report to Napit and ask for their opinion,, if u can post response on here thanks
How much do u get charged in LONDON THESE DAYS FOR A EICR

 

[MG201]

There a pic of the Napit code book for the OP

 

[Colin Evans]

Personally I would fit an RCBO C/U as matter of course....Not expensive and covers all basis...It gives the client full protection...

 

[Jelade Elect.]

Hi
I've invested on a EICR Codebreaker Via Napit earlier this year and had the previous version for 17th Edition which is a Good bit of Kit to add to your tool bag, I'm sure NICEIC & other Bodies have their own versions for members or non members
So regarding C2 or C3, 2nd floor flat you probably wont dangling a extension lead out your window to clean your car, but ground floor & 1st floor its likely as i've seen it so many times, so on 1st Floor & ground Floor, I Code C2, BS 7671 522.6.202, sockets which can be used outdoors
Also no cables with no mechanical protection ie. not in steel conduit ot the likes of, in stud walls or cables buried in walls less than 50mm as most solid walls are 100mm so either side will be still venerable for a cable to be penetrated by a nail or rouge Screw by others C2, BS 7671 411.3.3
I don't look for making extra work for a EICR's or extra money for the sake of it etc, but safety of the Property and Safety Life, as you can not put a cost to someone life, so to clients to spend a few hundreds to get up to date as RCD's are life savers regarding age of installation, I always recommend on a inspection to upgrade any issues to bring installation to a good standard RCD's or RCBO's to future proof for now and btw this is just my opinion & 90% of my clients & Landlords & Landladies will also agree.
As I also do work for Local Governments & Authorities they now have started to replace D.B.'s when tenants leave their properties if any additional circuits needed all D.B. to have RCBO's and S.P. as standards to meet 18th Edition
Kind Regards
Tony Jelade Electrical Services

 

[Jelade Elect.]

There a pic of the Napit code book for the OP

View attachment 48491

View attachment 48492

I got That Bible Lol..

 

[Mfctitch]

It's not compliant with section 314. That's not up for debate at all.

Lighting circuits can have RCD protection added at any point on them to facilitate alterations.

How funny I've just been having this discussion with my knowledgeable supplier as I have to do and EICR on a 7 way wylex board with no RCD and he said as I can't prove that the cables are deeper than 50mm and the customer does not want to a new board then he suggested an up front RCD.
I've just read section 314 and I interpreted it to mean every circuit must be RCd protected not a batch of circuits I.E like the 5 and 5 way boards.

can you point out please how I'm reading it wrong

Thanks

 

[littlespark]

Selectivity.

upfront rcd trips, everything goes off.

your knowledgable supplier is well out of date.

As is this thread.

 

[magnoliafan89]

How funny I've just been having this discussion with my knowledgeable supplier as I have to do and EICR on a 7 way wylex board with no RCD and he said as I can't prove that the cables are deeper than 50mm and the customer does not want to a new board then he suggested an up front RCD.
I've just read section 314 and I interpreted it to mean every circuit must be RCd protected not a batch of circuits I.E like the 5 and 5 way boards.

can you point out please how I'm reading it wrong

Thanks

Surely if its an EICR you don't need to provide an rcd unless the client has asked??

 

[Andy78]

How funny I've just been having this discussion with my knowledgeable supplier as I have to do and EICR on a 7 way wylex board with no RCD and he said as I can't prove that the cables are deeper than 50mm and the customer does not want to a new board then he suggested an up front RCD.
I've just read section 314 and I interpreted it to mean every circuit must be RCd protected not a batch of circuits I.E like the 5 and 5 way boards.

can you point out please how I'm reading it wrong

Thanks

314.2 the failure of one circuit shall not affect others.

See the reg for the exact wording.

 

[Mfctitch]

Selectivity.

upfront rcd trips, everything goes off.

your knowledgable supplier is well out of date.

As is this thread.

Thanks for you reply but can you answer my other question which was if the RCD should not trip other circuits then how come we fit split load boards?
confussed
[automerge]1593442977[/automerge]

Surely if its an EICR you don't need to provide an rcd unless the client has asked??

Very true but we are often accused of stitching the customer up so knowing its an old board with no RCD fitted and if we are saying that its a fail with no RCD, then I'm trying to give him options other than a new board if that's possible.

 

[ChrisElectrical88]

As this has been brought tot the top of the forum and I haven’t seen it... why has no one picked up the high r2 reading on circuit 2.
That report is awful, the form layout is also awful.

 

[Mfctitch]

As this has been brought tot the top of the forum and I haven’t seen it... why has no one picked up the high r2 reading on circuit 2.
That report is awful, the form layout is also awful.

Sorry my fault i Jumped in on an old thread and started to ask questions about fitting an upfront RCD, whereas it might have been better to start a new thread

 

[magnoliafan89]

Thanks for you reply but can you answer my other question which was if the RCD should not trip other circuits then how come we fit split load boards?
confussed
[automerge]1593442977[/automerge]

Very true but we are often accused of stitching the customer up so knowing its an old board with no RCD fitted and if we are saying that its a fail with no RCD, then I'm trying to give him options other than a new board if that's possible.

Mark it unsatisfactory. Then personally I would say a new board would be the best course of action if he declines at least you've done what you were paid to do and no one can argue with you on that

 

[Snailspark]

I think the problem is that there is mention in the NAPIT Codebreakers that gives it a C2. It also mentions that previous editions of BS7671 don’t necessarily warrant a c2. (Open to interpretation).
i personally think that if there is clear evidence of additional sockets/ switches being installed at a time when RCD protection was required then it warrants a c2 and that "new" fitting would indeed require RCD protection. However, if it is clear old existing circuitry and accessories that complied with an earlier edition of bs7671, then at most, a c3 with a strong recommendation of upgrading to RCD protection which the client can choose to do or not.
The important thing with this is that the installation is safe in terms of no degradation, overheating signs, correct earthing and bonding, high insulation resistance, low zs etc.
As DSES has already said, you dont take one look at old colours and make it unsatisfactory, recommending a rewire because 18th edition says we use new colours!!

 

[Pretty Mouth]

if the RCD should not trip other circuits then how come we fit split load boards?

From the OSG:

The division of an installation into two parts with separate 30 mA RCCBs will ensure
that part of the installation will remain on supply in the event of a fault.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I'm just trying to work out who the deleted member is who was giving all the dislikes at the beginning .

 

[littlespark]

I'm just trying to work out who the deleted member is who was giving all the dislikes at the beginning .

I thought his name was "Deleted Member" as some sort of joke???

 

[westward10]

Nigel was "essex" deleted member was "stantheman".

 

[Welchyboy1]

If there was no supplementary bonding in the bathroom or RCD protection to the circuits that warrants a C2

Exactly what i was thinking!
[automerge]1593541730[/automerge]

Some of our tenants have the mem boards fitted in 2005 or before . Ones where some is rcd protected other half isnt. When doing eicrs its a c3 that cables less than 50mm are not rcd protected and also c3 that lights arent rcd protected.
If however we want to do work on these circuits we either swap the mcb for an rcbo or move the mcb over to the rcd side.

As for an upfront rcd not being compliant...so you have a client with an old cartridge fuse board asking you to put an extra light on the circuit...not that big a job...you're going to honestly turn to them and say
Yeh well first im going to have to test the whole install as i have to change the whole board.
As i suspect dave from the pub would soon happily be used instead
[/QUOTE
I use an rcd fcu

 

[magnoliafan89]

Exactly what i was thinking!
[automerge]1593541730[/automerge]

I do that too. Did a job for a friend who wanted an extra socket put in did an rcd fcu so everything I put in was protected by a 30ma rcd

 

[Jelade Elect.]

No it’s not correct.
There is no requirement to install RCDs in Consumer Units.

There are requirements to protect some circuits, which would require an RCD be placed in or very close to the Consumer Unit.
However, the person who conducted the Inspection should be listing the instances where RCD protection is required but not been provided, and then applying a code for each of those instances.

In many instances, RCD protection can be provided, simply by the installation of an RCD or RCBO in or close to the Consumer Unit.

Only thing that’s changed, is the person who conducted the latest inspection, wants to make money from you.

Hi been using the Napit Code breaker for a few year now and if I see none or a lack of RCD protection for circuits not clipped direct or in trunking or conduit its a straight C2
just on the grounds of section 5.12.3, 522.6.202, no protection of cables in wall less than 50mm from surface, which can not always see but can assume if the wall is a standard 100mm wall, that it does not conform, we sparkies are not looking to rip people off as Ive seen peeps on here giving good sparks a bad name on for telling folks you got to spend money on your property to get it to a good and safe standard etc. as introducing RCD's or RCBO's also detects any Earth to Neutral defects if not already identified on the EICR
this is just my opinion and my clients will have a chose to do it or not.
Regards Jelade Electrical Services

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Hi been using the Napit Code breaker for a few year now and if I see none or a lack of RCD protection for circuits not clipped direct or in trunking or conduit its a straight C2
just on the grounds of section 5.12.3, 522.6.202, no protection of cables in wall less than 50mm from surface, which can not always see but can assume if the wall is a standard 100mm wall, that it does not conform, we sparkies are not looking to rip people off as Ive seen peeps on here giving good sparks a bad name on for telling folks you got to spend money on your property to get it to a good and safe standard etc. as introducing RCD's or RCBO's also detects any Earth to Neutral defects if not already identified on the EICR
this is just my opinion and my clients will have a chose to do it or not.
Regards Jelade Electrical Services

This is at odds with Best Practice Guide 4, which codes it as C3

 

[westward10]

I'm not one for Guide books but the NAPIT one is considered a joke in the industry.

 

[Ian1981]

This is at odds with Best Practice Guide 4, which codes it as C3

Yet Napit , Niceic and others sit on the electric safety first committee that write up these best practices guides and are supposed to come to a mutual agreement , yet Napit C2 this in their own guide book? Bizarre!

 

[Baldspark]

Hi Everyone.

I have done an EICR at a cleaning company today. The installation is less than a year old as they have had a refurb. The spark who did was retired and wouldn't issue any certification! In fairness the job is to an ok standard but there isn't any RCD protection on anything. Am i correct in thinking that because it was 'designed' under 7671:2018 that it is a C2? or would C3 still cover it?

 

[Risteard]

Hi Everyone.

I have done an EICR at a cleaning company today. The installation is less than a year old as they have had a refurb. The spark who did was retired and wouldn't issue any certification! In fairness the job is to an ok standard but there isn't any RCD protection on anything. Am i correct in thinking that because it was 'designed' under 7671:2018 that it is a C2? or would C3 still cover it?

The date it was designed has absolutely nothing to do with how safe or dangerous it is.

You need to make that judgement.

Dates are wholly irrelevant.

 

[Deleted account]

Just because he was retired doesn’t mean he can’t do a certificate. It’s just notification he can’t do. And if it’s a cleaning business that would not be needed.