EICR Code C3 Meaning

[NickD]

Current GN3 p.80 says C3 means "Improvement required".

Current GN3 p.105, model EICR form, says C3 means "Improvement recommended".

Your thoughts? Bit of a cock-up if you ask me.

 

[Badged01]

That's essentially what Im saying. If it doesn't meet current regs but isnt dangerous C3 applies!

 

[spark 68]

That's essentially what Im saying. If it doesn't meet current regs but isnt dangerous C3 applies!

Sorry Badged, it was partly a tongue in cheek comment referring to an earlier thread and discussion we had RE: 16th edition installs, lol

 

[Badged01]

Though it also opens up another arguement that if it doesn't conform to BS7671 why wouldn't you automatically C3 it rather than not record it?

I know the ESC doc gives examples of this (e.g. the bonding) but if for example BS7671 is recommending 10mm for that particular application and you've got 6mm wouldn't it be an improvement to replace a 6mm with 10mm even if there isn't signs of thermal overload etc .....

 

[NickD]

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.

Exactly, in the guidance on the forms it specifically says they expect to see a C3 coding minimum for absence of RCDs where they should be present by current regs - specific requirement to record a (probably) non-danger situation with a C3. Ergo we are not required only to report on danger.

 

[Badged01]

Its all open to interpretation .......

 

[Badged01]

I just interprete it my way :smartass:

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Exactly, in the guidance on the forms it specifically says they expect to see a C3 coding minimum for absence of RCDs where they should be present by current regs - specific requirement to record a (probably) non-danger situation with a C3. Ergo we are not required only to report on danger.

eh?

visual + test/s will/should confirm whether danger is present or not...either immediate or under fault conditions...if it is..then it aint a 3....is it.

 

[Guest111]

To simplify definitions a bit,try looking at it this way in law when something is compulsory they use the word required,not recommended,as in the law requires you to wear a seat belt when in a motor vehicle,so from my point of view if something says requires then implies
that it needs to be done not that you may want to think about doing it.As other have said they need to decide on what they mean

 

[pepparz]

Current GN3 p.80 says C3 means "Improvement required".

Current GN3 p.105, model EICR form, says C3 means "Improvement recommended".

Your thoughts? Bit of a cock-up if you ask me.

IMO this is just been pedantic.

 

[Guest111]

IMO this is just been pedantic.

or a sign of how bad the times are,there seems to be more and more people on here during the day,we can't all be retired so maybe works a bit slack.lol

 

[GLENNSPARK]

To simplify definitions a bit,try looking at it this way in law when something is compulsory they use the word required,not recommended,as in the law requires you to wear a seat belt when in a motor vehicle,so from my point of view if something says requires then implies
that it needs to be done not that you may want to think about doing it.As other have said they need to decide on what they mean

yeah but Phil

you goes in someware with an open mind....i mean i am already looking before i even enter the premises (think outside lighting, bulkheads and inappropriate accessories, evidence of TT etc etc)

you note what you see/find as you go round...start in one area...then move on...

something that doesn`t pose an immediate danger...but could do so under fault conditions...so say for instance no main earthing/bonding/crossbonding would all be a 2....as would class 1s with no CPC...

however, if there was main earthing present....but it was undersized....then you can apply the adiabatic for time/current to verify....if it checked out then i wouldn`t be awarding it a 2...would i.

in the case of bonding then again its a case of looking....6mm main bonds on a TN-C-S i would give a 3...as long as continuity checked out OK and they passed visual...

another one is your end to ends....lets say you are getting end to ends on a ring final....R1 & Rn is good...but R2 is broken...
now, does this constitute a 2?...
well as long as all points served had the CPC present..and it meets the adiabatic then i would note it...but not allot it a code..

so to summerise

something that may initially appear to fail..may not do....
and this is why just slinging about codes off the cuff is not the way.

but i sees it a lot...and some of it is just fakery...

but a 3 is not a fail..is it...its improvement recommended....so you could issue an ECR with various 3s on it...but still pass it as satisfactory overall...

 

[NickD]

IMO this is just been pedantic.

Mrs Scroggins, RCD protection on these circuits is recommended.

Mrs Scroggins, RCD protection on these circuits is required.

The guidance note is there for guidance including of learners and should be right IMHO. As it stands it's a licence to put the screw on vulnerable people to get C3s rectified.

 

[pepparz]

physics doesn't discriminate for vulnerable people,its only a license to screw folk in your mind. theres a definition for C3 so just quote that and leave it to the customer

 

[Badged01]

or a sign of how bad the times are,there seems to be more and more people on here during the day,we can't all be retired so maybe works a bit slack.lol

I'm semi-retired and trying to keep work slack ..... I want to be in sunnier climes but her indoors insists on remaining in the cold, wet, windy and miserable season (my technical term for spring & summer).

Until then I enjoy my banter on the forum to keep me going ....... :44:

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Mrs Scroggins, RCD protection on these circuits is recommended.

Mrs Scroggins, RCD protection on these circuits is required.

The guidance note is there for guidance including of learners and should be right IMHO. As it stands it's a licence to put the screw on vulnerable people to get C3s rectified.

well Nick.

now you`v spotted these anomalies in the OSG (theres plenty of em)...can you now in future refer to GN3..

Thanks.
Glenn.

 

[NickD]

Read my post #1. The anomaly is in GN3. It offers two different definitions, one in the table on p.80 current edition and one in the model forms. One of the two is a licence to push cheap/free 1hr limited-to-hell EICRs then tell people they require a CU change or worse, and if challenged point to GN3 as the best practice document. It is naive to think there aren't people out there looking to run a business that way. Haven't even looked at the OSG for this.

 

[spark 68]

well Nick.

now you`v spotted these anomalies in the OSG (theres plenty of em)...can you now in future refer to GN3..

Thanks.
Glenn.

GN3 is no better lol

It is about time the IET got their act together, Nevermind adding more layers of crap in Amd3, how about sorting the poor wording and "anomalies" in the current editions/publications ? lol

 

[GLENNSPARK]

GN3 is no better lol

It is about time the IET got their act together, Nevermind adding more layers of crap in Amd3, how about sorting the poor wording and "anomalies" in the current editions/publications ? lol

and check out the pics of earthing arrangements in the OSG...lol

a `16mm main earthing conductor for TT`?

lol.....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Read my post #1. The anomaly is in GN3. It offers two different definitions, one in the table on p.80 current edition and one in the model forms. One of the two is a licence to push cheap/free 1hr limited-to-hell EICRs then tell people they require a CU change or worse, and if challenged point to GN3 as the best practice document. It is naive to think there aren't people out there looking to run a business that way. Haven't even looked at the OSG for this.

i know damn well what`s goin on out there Nick...