EICR Codes

[Julie.]

I wander if that’s gets through the forum sensors.

did you look at 20:38 onwards for the full picture?

 

[Deleted account]

did you look at 20:38 onwards for the full picture?

Haven’t watched it all but caught the doll at beginning and ----- half way through.

a few members will be watching this now ive mentioned the -----.

 

[Julie.]

Haven’t watched it all but caught the doll at beginning and ----- half way through.

a few members will be watching this now ive mentioned the -----.

Yeah, I laughed at the same points, probably more than I should have...

 

[westward10]

NYY-J cables are manufactured for direct burial in the ground however to comply with BS7671 they must be protected by a duct or conduit. The only type of cable suitable for direct burial according to BS7671 is a cable which incorporates an earthed armour or metal sheath. So your method of installation is not compliant, see Regulation 522.8.10.

 

[Julie.]

NYY-J cables are manufactured for direct burial in the ground however to comply with BS7671 they must be protected by a duct or conduit. The only type of cable suitable for direct burial according to BS7671 is a cable which incorporates an earthed armour or metal sheath. So your method of installation is not compliant, see Regulation 522.8.10.

I am not sure anyone is saying it is compliant.

 

[westward10]

I know but in #2 you say you weren't sure if you would Code it when it is a non-compliant means of installation.

 

[Julie.]

I know but in #2 you say you wouldn't Code it when it is a non-compliant means of installation.

Correct.

Nor would I code other things because they are non-compliant, I would code them if they represented an immediate danger, a potential danger, or a recommended improvement (Or FI etc).

There isn't a requirement or option on an EICR for "not compliant" nor should there be.

Old wiring colours are non-compliant but Prima facie I wouldn't code that, Plastic CU again isn't compliant, but again in-itself I wouldn't automatically code that, and so on.

The idea of a periodic report is to make a qualified assessment if the installation is safe/suitable. That doesn't mean it has to be 100% compliant with the latest regulations.

As said earlier on in the thread, the same item, given no RCD protection would attract a different code.

 

[westward10]

I agree the new Coding system is poor the old Catergories were better. Having said that the cable is not installed in compliance with BS7671 and comparing it with old conductor colours and all insulated consumer units isn't relevant, that is a case of a previous compliance no longer satisfying current requirements. This cable installation has never been compliant, the fact it has rcd protection is irrelevant.

 

[Julie.]

I agree the new Coding system is poor the old Catergories were better. Having said that the cable is not installed in compliance with BS7671 and comparing it with old conductor colours and all insulated consumer units isn't relevant, that is a case of a previous compliance no longer satisfying current requirements. This cable installation has never been compliant, the fact it has rcd protection is irrelevant.

I would disagree, how safe or unsafe something is isn't contingent on whether is was compliant or not previously, but wholly on does it or does it not present a danger.

Having or not having rcd protection changes this significantly.

 

[westward10]

Does it present a danger or not well we cannot anticipate that but following the requirements of BS7671 we would hope this danger is significantly reduced which is why EICRs are carried out. Item 5.9 of the condition report inspection schedule is relevant here asking whether wiring systems are appropriate etc......
Regulation 522.8.10 clearly states that unless a cable has an earthed armour or sheath then additional precautions are required such as duct or conduit, it does not suggest rcd protection as an alternative therefore some level of Coding in the Report is required.