EICR Code C3 Meaning

[Zebra Stripe]

Stone the crows and f**** the pigs and pass the ammunition...its just semantics and really is not that much of a problem surely sherley...if you take SirKit Breakers analogy -

"The installation is safe, but i can recommend some improvements which will make it safer".
which is no different from....
"The installation is safe, but it requires some improvements which will make it safer".

So you can recommend the improvements or you can say it requires some imrovements....maybe its just me but I cant see what the difference is

 

[NickD]

"Mrs Scroggins, your electrics are basically safe, however there are recommendations for improvements" - all is well.

"Mrs Scroggins, your electrics are basically safe, however there are requirements for improvements" - old dear coughs up for them all when she didn't have to and you end up on Rogue Traders.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

"Mrs Scroggins, your electrics are basically safe, however there are recommendations for improvements" - all is well.

"Mrs Scroggins, your electrics are basically safe, however there are requirements for improvements" - old dear coughs up for them all when she didn't have to and you end up on Rogue Traders.

wow....a breakthrough.

better times ahead Nick?...

 

[Badged01]

Clearly he's been to the 5W GLENNSPARK course of how to win friends and influence people ......

 

[Geoffsd]

You can recommend things which aren't required - wise.

You can require things which aren't recommended - unwise.



It's difficult to discuss if you don't know what the words actually mean.

 

[Zebra Stripe]

"Mrs Scroggins, your electrics are basically safe, however there are recommendations for improvements" - all is well.

"Mrs Scroggins, your electrics are basically safe, however there are requirements for improvements" - old dear coughs up for them all when she didn't have to and you end up on Rogue Traders.

Poor grammar, but i'll go with it just to help poor old Mrs Scroggins.....

......however there are recommendations for improvements"
.....however there are requirements for improvements"
requirements is not the same as requires..requirements insinuates some sort of Regulatory thing.

If it said "I recommend that an RCD be installed to meet current Regulations" or "an RCD is required to meet current Regulations" whats the difference.....maybe certain words have more power to certain people.....Requirements has more power, and is a word used in the same context as "compliance" etc.....requires and requirement can mean completely different things...in legalese "may" is synonymus with "must" and may or must be read as such:freak:

 

[Zebra Stripe]

You can recommend things which aren't required - wise.

You can require things which aren't recommended - unwise.



It's difficult to discuss if you don't know what the words actually mean.

also;
you can recommend things which are recommeneded, and
you can require things which arent requirements

Its really about context, not miss-understanding what a word means

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If you recommend something that will make the installation safer, it suggests that there is a potential for danger present. In other words, a code C2.

 

[Geoffsd]

you can recommend things which are recommended

Well, you would, wouldn't you? Isn't that the point? C3.

you can require things which aren't requirements

Precisely. Isn't that also known as 'ripping off the customer'?

Its really about context, not misunderstanding what a word means

Is it?

 

[NDG Elecs]

If you recommend something that will make the installation safer, it suggests that there is a potential for danger present. In other words, a code C2.

I see what you are saying Spin but according to ESC BPG the lack of a old-new colours sticker is a Code 3..... I would not really classify that as there being a potential for danger and could never Code 2 it....even find a Code 3 a lil over zealous TBH. My thought would be if that you cannot distiguish between black/blue and red/brown then you should nae be tinkering.

As you say, Code 2 is for things that could become dangerous; a regularly used DSO with only one (loose) 3.5mm machine screw perhaps...

 

[NickD]

If you recommend something that will make the installation safer, it suggests that there is a potential for danger present. In other words, a code C2.

It suggests you've identified a risk and can recommend a way to mitigate it, it doesn't necessarily suggest potential for danger. IMHO Danger = a risk of injury or damage that is either unacceptably likely to happen, or unacceptably severe in its outcome if it does happen, or both. Or something like that.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Again.
We are required to report on defects, deterioration, damage, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the Regulations which may give rise to danger.
There is no requirement to report on anything else.

 

[NickD]

But further to those requirements we may note and report on improvements, otherwise they would not have provided code C3. Indeed the existence of code C3 suggests we are recommended to do so.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

But further to those requirements we may note and report on improvements, otherwise they would not have provided code C3. Indeed the existence of code C3 suggests we are recommended to do so.

a 3s got sod all to do with being `recommended to report on anything you find`.....

its about identifying non-conformances that neither pose an immediate danger...nor a danger due to fault conditions...

you record on what your findings are by making note/s...together with alloting the neccessary codes should they warrent it....regardless of whether its Mrs. Brady old lady..

or professor plumb with his millions and numerous rolls/bentley`s etc...

 

[NickD]

Fair point. All I was trying to say is that we don't only report on stuff that does/could give rise to danger, which is what spin seemed to be suggesting (well alright what he said was that that was all we were required to report). I'm not suggesting C3 is for reporting any bell bang or whistle we might think of. Cos it isn't.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If you report on conditions which you are not required to report on, can you then declare that the report has been compiled in accordance with BS7671?

 

[NickD]

If you report on conditions which you are not required to report on, can you then declare that the report has been compiled in accordance with BS7671?

GN3 says C3 is for where C1 and C2 do not apply, so where danger is neither present nor potential. C3 is obviously there to be used, and so a report using it to correctly record noncompliance that is neither dangerous nor potentially dangerous is in accordance with GN3?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Lol, back to my first post.

 

[Badged01]

Interesting arguements showing what we all know, BS7671 and its phletero of supporting documentation is contradictory and open to interpretation. As I read it .....

BS7671, GN3 and the ECS guide (all linked into the IET!) require that defects etc ... that give rise to danger or may give rise to danger should be recorded during an inspection --- for me these are the clear C1 ( Danger present do something immediate about it) and C2 (Potentially dangerous do something urgently about it) codes. The ambiguity then starts around the C3 code and does it just apply to just danger/potential danger or not.

BS7671 doesn't give a clear definition but in its model form (EICR) it suggests that "observations" classifed as "improvement recommended" be C3. I interpret that as being the "observation" isn't dangerous or you would have coded C1 or C2. It doesn't define exactly what you should record as an 'observation' however.
GN3 then describes the new codes as being for "danger and non-compliances to BS7671". It defines C3 as "to be cited where C1 or C2 do not apply" I interpret this as meaning these codes (C1 & C2) apply to danger and the (C3) to non-compliances to BS7671. This then leads me to think that the 'observations' to be recorded on the EICR under BS7671 are for non-compliances to BS761 which are then coded for danger (C1 & C2) or improvement (C3).
ESC publication informs us "BS7671 no longer requires departures from the current edition of BS7671 that do not give rise to danger or require improvement be included in condition reports". Again I interpret this as meaning 'observation' on the EICR should not only cover the "give rise to danger" (C1 & C2) but also the "require improvement" (C3) to BS7671 angle. It then gives specific example of where the C3 codes could be applied. e.g. Lack of RCD protection is a C3 -- not dangerous or potentially dangerous or we would be condeming all 3036 boards but certainly a recommendation for upgrade to improve safety. It also gives some examples of where it recommends departures from BS7671 as not recorded. e.g. inadequate cross-sectional area of main protective bonding conductors, provided certain conditions are met!

My interpretation of the whole mish mash is that you conduct an inspection, EICR or whatever you want to call it, against the current BS7671 and record all departures from BS7671 as "Observations", not just those dangerous/potentially dangerous. Using your engineering judgement you then code these "Observations" C1/C2/C3 depending on how you assess them. If in doubt there is some clear guidance from the ESC as to what codes apply and where -- plus what observations shouldn't even be recorded.

Ultimately though this is my interpretation and I'm risk adverse so I like to cover my 'butt' by including as much as I can. A code 3 doesn't give an "unsatisfacory" EICR but highlights to the client what I consider to be safety improvements "recommended". If they don't want to do anything about them that's their call but I feel I've done my bit and advised them against current regulations!.

If granny gets a 400V shock through her pinny whilst stood in the pond using the electric mower outside from a "Y" adaptor plugged into the kitchen light because the 3036 nail didn't "melt", don't come looking at me, I recommended you upgrade to an RCD ...... (stretched I know but hopefully you get the point!)

 

[spark 68]

If you look in the OSG and GN3, C3 is also to be applied to installations constructed to an earlier edition of BS7671, OSG APP G 3.2 pg. 153, and GN3 3.12 pg. 80, if the departure warrants an improvement recommendation, otherwise no code.