EICR Main Switch/circuit breaker

[eddiecme]

Morning guys,
I'm just after a bit of advice. I carried out an EICR on a commercial premises yesterday (no periodic since 1995). 3 phase out of the meter into Henley blocks then split between 3 distribution boards. Two single phase (one old 7 way rewireable wylex board and one single way proteus board) and one enclosure housing only a 3 phase mcb feeding an oven.
What is best practice to record in the main switch/circuit breaker on the EICR? They obviously don't share anything common apart from the 1361 cutout fuses. Any help would be appreciated!

 

[Pete999]

Do the 2 units at the bottom of your picture have cover?

 

[eddiecme]

Do the 2 units at the bottom of your picture have cover?

In what respect?

 

[Pete999]

In what respect?

Well have you removed the covers for inspection purposes? if the don't have covers at all I would be more concerned with that issue, than what main switch I should be quoting in my EICR.

 

[eddiecme]

Well have you removed the covers for inspection purposes? if the don't have covers at all I would be more concerned with that issue, than what main switch I should be quoting in my EICR.

oh sorry, yes, the covers have been removed for the inspection, it wasn't found like that!

 

[westward10]

It has no single point of isolation, there is no Main Switch so you will have to enter "None" or "NA" and make a note in the recommendations.

 

[westward10]

Looks a right lash up the conductors between the Hager mcb and the trunking are not suitably enclosed.

 

[eddiecme]

Looks a right lash up the conductors between the Hager mcb and the trunking are not suitably enclosed.

Yeah it's a bit of a mess, there were a lot of faults on the general standard of wiring and IP ratings. With no single point of isolation would this go in as C3?

 

[westward10]

That is up to you.

 

[Deleted account]

I wouldn't code it.

 

[Toneyz]

C3 improvement recommended I always like to see an installation with a overall main switch.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Code 3 IMO.

 

[Richard Burns]

If I were doing the EICR for an insurance company, who have less than intelligent conditions of addressing all C3s, then it would be no code as the switches are all in close proximity, if it were being done privately then C3 on the schedule of inspections as this would be a recommended improvement for safety. N/A on the installation details and each individual main switch identified in the schedule of test results.

 

[westward10]

If I were doing the EICR for an insurance company, who have less than intelligent conditions of addressing all C3s, then it would be no code as the switches are all in close proximity, if it were being done privately then C3 on the schedule of inspections as this would be a recommended improvement for safety. N/A on the installation details and each individual main switch identified in the schedule of test results.

I don't really get that what difference does it make. Whether someone ignores the C3 is not a reason for not including it.

 

[Richard Burns]

I don't really get that what difference does it make. Whether someone ignores the C3 is not a reason for not including it.

If there is a minor recommendation for safety that will cost a customer significant sums to address for minimal gain I feel this is counter productive and not a professional approach. Having someone aware of an issue that could be addressed at a time something else is being changed is good, forcing someone to immediately and without fail to install a single main switch for close grouped boards is not good.

 

[eddiecme]

If there is a minor recommendation for safety that will cost a customer significant sums to address for minimal gain I feel this is counter productive and not a professional approach. Having someone aware of an issue that could be addressed at a time something else is being changed is good, forcing someone to immediately and without fail to install a single main switch for close grouped boards is not good.

appreciate your feedback

 

[eddiecme]

thanks for the response guys

 

[suffolkspark]

There was a section on the single point of isolation recently in the mag we get from napit, it's page 32 in issue #1 2017 for anybody that hasn't binned it yet.

Their view is that although yes it is good practice to have an isolator at the origin it is NOT required by BS7671 and so no code is required.

 

[westward10]

There was a section on the single point of isolation recently in the mag we get from napit, it's page 32 in issue #1 2017 for anybody that hasn't binned it yet.

Their view is that although yes it is good practice to have an isolator at the origin it is NOT required by BS7671 and so no code is required.

How have they explained side tracking Reg 537.1.4

 

[suffolkspark]

I'll get the scanner fired up..........

 

[suffolkspark]

 

[westward10]

Thought as much.

 

[Toneyz]

If I were doing the EICR for an insurance company, who have less than intelligent conditions of addressing all C3s, then it would be no code as the switches are all in close proximity, if it were being done privately then C3 on the schedule of inspections as this would be a recommended improvement for safety. N/A on the installation details and each individual main switch identified in the schedule of test results.

So you apply if the installation complies with BS7671 Amd 3 depending who you are doing the EICR for ?.C3 is improvement recommended/does not comply with the latest regs

 

[suffolkspark]

on the napit forms there's an option to just add items as a "note" if they aren't due a classification code so that is what I do when installations are like this, which is seems is the right thing to do afterall

 

[westward10]

I believe it should be Coded not side tracked.

 

[Richard Burns]

So you apply if the installation complies with BS7671 Amd 3 depending who you are doing the EICR for ?.C3 is improvement recommended/does not comply with the latest regs

C3 is for a non compliance with BS7617 that may give rise to danger and so improvement is recommended but it is not a situation of immediate danger or where a fault may cause danger.
Where I am aware that an inappropriate level of importance will be assigned to my professional observation that a low level of danger may arise, then I will modify my report to ensure that it is not misinterpreted by uninformed persons.

 

[davesparks]

All of the regulations exist for the purpose of ensuring a safe installation.

An EICR should not be tailored to suit who will be reading it. If an improvement for safety can be recommended then it should be recommended to everyone, not just the people who are more likely to ignore it. If an insurance company is going to insist on having every recommendation for improvement acted upon them that is a good thing, it is the ideal situation that every possible safety improvement is insisted on.

The requirement for a single main switch has been in the regulations in various forms since the first edition so there is no way it can be argued that it complied at the time of installation without one. The purpose of a single main switch is to allow the simple and total isolation of the entire installation in any situation when it is necessary, especially in emergency situations.
Its easy enough to identify multiple points of isolation in normal conditions, but in an emergency situation the tendency towards panic takes over and makes everything a lot more difficult.

 

[Ian1981]

Along with your scheme technical helpline does anyone use the IET tech line?
I have done once and they had different advice from the NICEIC helpline.

 

[Pete999]

Along with your scheme technical helpline does anyone use the IET tech line?
I have done once and they had different advice from the NICEIC helpline.

Now why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[Ian1981]

Now why doesn't that surprise me?

I'd rather phone the IET tech line.
Think people forget its there