EICR problems.

[Heisenberg]

Under what circumstances would a Sub-DB need to have MPB links to water and gas?


I had always believed that the CPC of the feed from the Main-DB would be sufficient, assuming it had been designed and installed properly.


Got a situation where you have a small Sub-DB in a caretakers office, situated next to a toilet. The caretaker who is a mate of mine asked me to look at an EICR that had just been done on it. To me it looks like whoever has done it is fishing for work. They've claimed that a lack of RCD protection for the sockets in the office is a C2, claimed that an outside light is fed from 2 sources, when it clearly is not, and also claimed that there is no MPB to water supply. NOw I don't do EICRs as I don't feel I quite have enough experience yet but only looked at the EICR as a favour.


I know that the RCD C2 is a C3. It would only be a C2 if it was a location with a bath or shower.
I know about the light, because I tested it
But the C2 given for no MPB to the water is what's bugging me.


What is also a concern is that whoever did the EICR put details down about the main intake, but never actually went there. They never went there because nobody seems to know where the feed in the office originates from. The caretaker does not know, and was with the spark the whole time, she said he never left the office. The test results I got where also quite different from the ones written on the EICR.


Finally, he used a domestic EICR form on what I would not consider a domestic install. He was a NIC approved contractor?


I'm tempted to just say to the caretaker to get another firm in.


Any opinions and thoughts would be appreciated.


Cheers

 

[biggsy]

Main intake details by enquiry ie off existing paperwork ?
Is RCd required ie skilled or instructed person
Main bonding no joins to met
I believe is correct

 

[Heisenberg]

Main intake details by enquiry ie off existing paperwork ?
Is RCd required ie skilled or instructed person
Main bonding no joins to met
I believe is correct

No existing paperwork, or enquiries made.
I think the RCD being given a C2 was because the board is old and would need changing too.

Cheers

 

[chilliwilly]

In the case of gas and water, where it is bonded at the point of entry then is buried, it has to be bonded again where it enters another building. This could be a plant room detached from the main building where the services enter the building, then are buried and enter the main building or another building. Or in the case of a multilpe occupancy where the services enter at the bottom of the building, then sub mains serve other flats, they have to be bonded again where they re enter the individual properties from the sub mains.

This is a requirement that the niccy will look for in the case of multiple occupancies, but I can't remember which page in the regs its on. The last one I did about 7 years ago, had a plastic water feed into the building, a copper section for the bond what I asked for, then continued up to a potable tank in plastic. Then fed to each flat in plastic, and throughout the flats in plastic, again with a copper section in the hot and the cold and a continuous bond to them including the gas pipe coming into the flat from the sub main/consumer unit.

The case of the rcd protecton on sockets and generally on circuits buried at a depth less than 50mm, I would classify a code 3, unless like you say it serves outdoor portable and fixed equipment via socket outlets rated at 20 amp and below, or fed from a 32amp circuit or lower, or a circuit supplying a special location would be a 2.

The fact that the incoming supply has not been even visually checked, well all I can say is the first couple of pages must be full of LIMs, and maybe that was agreed prior to the inspection? I myself wouldn't agree such a limitation, because of the further investigation leading towards coding a code 1 or 2 due to a missing cover or other situation offering direct contact danger, then the inspection being unsatisfactory.

 

[Engineer54]

Chillywilly, ....Why do you keep quoting what the NICEIC say or require?? You follow BS7671, and only BS7671!! What the NICEIC wants or require is neither here nor there. They thankfully, are '''NOT'' and never have been the governing body, that you conduct installations or EICRs too, ...they only Think and wish that they are!! lol!!!

 

[chilliwilly]

Its because I have just rejoined them last Friday, and as I'm with them, I have to follow their policies and intrpretations of the regs. Otherwise I could face costly penalties, no matter how much I disagree with some of them. If my customer base didn't require me to carry their endorsement, I would just go back to being a general electrician carrying the same work, without the endorsement.

One of their interpretations of a code1 is incorrect polarity on a lighting circuit? A 2 way switch with correct polarity constitutes the same danger when someone is changing a bulb, and even worse with an ES lamp holder. But that's what they interpret despite my disagreement on their interpretation.

 

[somersetsparks]

Its because I have just rejoined them last Friday, and as I'm with them, I have to follow their policies and intrpretations of the regs. Otherwise I could face costly penalties, no matter how much I disagree with some of them. If my customer base didn't require me to carry their endorsement, I would just go back to being a general electrician carrying the same work, without the endorsement.

One of their interpretations of a code1 is incorrect polarity on a lighting circuit? A 2 way switch with correct polarity constitutes the same danger when someone is changing a bulb, and even worse with an ES lamp holder. But that's what they interpret despite my disagreement on their interpretation.

The ES lampholder problem is definately a C1 - many ES lamps still show part of the thread of the lamp when fully screwed in, if the polarity was incorrect and somebody changed the lamp this would be live and could give them a belt - Textbook C1.

Some people deem polarity as core colours, I weould deem incorrect polarity as switches operating in neutral conductor or equipment such as fluorescent lights connected in reverse. Just having the wrong colour wire/sleeving only attracts a c3 for incorrect identifcation of conductors IMO.

 

[Engineer54]

Its because I have just rejoined them last Friday, and as I'm with them, I have to follow their policies and intrpretations of the regs. Otherwise I could face costly penalties, no matter how much I disagree with some of them. If my customer base didn't require me to carry their endorsement, I would just go back to being a general electrician carrying the same work, without the endorsement.

One of their interpretations of a code1 is incorrect polarity on a lighting circuit? A 2 way switch with correct polarity constitutes the same danger when someone is changing a bulb, and even worse with an ES lamp holder. But that's what they interpret despite my disagreement on their interpretation.

I think you have somehow been brainwashed by them. They can't penalise you in any way shape or form, by you following/complying with BS7671. No matter what they think is right or wrong, they do NOT make the rules that need to be followed for the UK electrical industry, the IEE and other related BS standards have that responsibility!!

 

[Silly Sausage]

Unfortuantely the fear of not having work has given these schemes this ominous power.
I'd argue the point myself!
For better or worse for myself, I've argued in interviews and virtually handed my notice in on jobs, because I've thought they're talking sheeite or giving me totally unreasonable work loads. I'd rather be skint than worrying about the stress of my name being on some half baked jobs.

 

[chilliwilly]

deleted

 

[chilliwilly]

The ES lampholder problem is definately a C1 - many ES lamps still show part of the thread of the lamp when fully screwed in, if the polarity was incorrect and somebody changed the lamp this would be live and could give them a belt - Textbook C1.

Some people deem polarity as core colours, I weould deem incorrect polarity as switches operating in neutral conductor or equipment such as fluorescent lights connected in reverse. Just having the wrong colour wire/sleeving only attracts a c3 for incorrect identifcation of conductors IMO.

Yes I 100% agree with what your saying, but by the same token, a two way light with correct polarity offers the same potential danger by avoidable default as incorrect polarity on a one way with bc. And increasing the likelyhood of electricution if an es lamp holder centre point being connected to neutral on a one way light, with the light switch upside down. Despite the niccy and others coding incorrect polarity as a code 1, and not a code 2 or 3 on correct polarity on a two way light by avoidable default by the "better judgement of others"?

 

[chilliwilly]

I think you have somehow been brainwashed by them. They can't penalise you in any way shape or form, by you following/complying with BS7671. No matter what they think is right or wrong, they do NOT make the rules that need to be followed for the UK electrical industry, the IEE and other related BS standards have that responsibility!!

Again I couldn't agree with you more, but unless you have been a member of the niccy for whatever reason, you will only understand what it means to be a member. You must comply with their policies and exceptionally well construed, and sometimes tangently misconstruals of codes of practices, you can argue untill your blue in the face. But they are the ones with the last word to their members. If you don't agree with their polices then you will end up with penaltys that could cost a hell of a lot more than your day rate, or weekly rate in the case of some poor bugger struggling. For them to return to check that your departure or non compliance has been remedied.

On my first assessment with them in a previous life, they ticked the red box on their job sheet for a PIR that I carried out, for not applying code 2 (pre 2nd ammendment 17th) to a non fuse spur supply more than one socket outlet from a 32 a ring, because it was wired in 4mm. I applied code 4, and after discussing the likelyhood of any overloading the cable, they said it probably would trip the mcb before any damage to the cable would likely occur, which is why I applied a code 4? But to them, it was still a departure as it was worded that a non fuse spur could only supply a single outlet, and not multiple.

There was another instance on the same assessment, where there was an overhead crane that I'd repaired and replaced an isolator on and replaced some damaged trunking, and sometime after they had built a mezz floor. This made the "placing out of reach", aspect within 3 meters reach of the bus bars. He started to tell me it should have a guard around it to restrict access and all the rest of it. It was only after the manager of the site confirming that the floor had been built after my work due to them needing extra floor space in a hurry, the engineer decided not to reject the job as a major departure.

And its as easy as that to end up with with one too many ticks in their red box to result in a return visit to check that the non compliances have been remedied, costing around £500.00+ for the privelage.

This is why on a periodic after findng exessive NFS, I split the ring into 2 16a or 20a radials, after finding a suitable point to split the ring regarding loading, amongst other things. If the customer isn't bothered about redecorating then its a different story. And in the case of alterations and modifications to buildings and changes in stockpiling, well that's something that could drop you right in in it. Even if its not your fault.

So as you can see complying with the UK codes of practice isn't all you have to do when your in the niccy.