Discuss Poor install EICR 12 year old hotel in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

This is the 2nd eicr. The 1st isnt worth viewing as it doesn't have any observations and wasnt completed by anyone i would consider competent. The original installation Certs are also available. Everyones main topic has been the RCD sockets etc. My main qustion is what would you suggest to the customer about the consumer units considering the top sufrace has been removed, no grommet strip, no gland on the swa ,plasterboard large hole not made good, alot of dust present in alot of them because of this, you can feel a draft through them... it could be a very expensive fix replacing them. Also some of the consumer units are in wardrobes, so theyre not installed flush to the ceiling so theres a gap. Could be a case of sliding paxoling or drilling holes and reterminating through.
 
The IP rating for the top of CU/DBs is to prevent fingers and small foreign objects from entering the enclosure.
I would consider using an intumescent sealant to seal round cables in holes in the plasterboard.
Same with those in wardrobes, though the CUs would have to be pushed up to the top of the wardrobe to make an effective seal.
If the gap in the wardrobes is to great, then a new top cover for the CU would be necessary.
 
I'm surprised that the top plate of the CCU has been removed although the hole sizes would be the same and the IP rating when the front cover is replaced fullfills IP4X. Glanding off the SWA is not a problem if it is done before the board is fitted. The SWA is/was used, I presume, with supplementary bonding in place and to aviod the necessity to fit RCDs and also assumes this lnstall was completed before the 18th ed.
Is this really a C2? C3 max and a note regarding the lack of RCDs
 
If the inspection is being conducted in accordance with BS7671, then the lack of RCD protection would be a code C3 (complied at the time of design/construction).

The edition of the regulations it was designed to doesn't matter, the EICR is carried out to the current edition.
Coding does not change based on when it was designed, if it does not comply with the current edition and this non compliance is related to safety then you code it.

The regulations do say that compliance with a previous edition does not necessarily need an observation to be made and coded, so for example red, yellow, blue conductors don't comply but do not requiteentioning on the eicr. This does not say that everything which previously complied is OK now.

One of the key reasons to carry out EICRs is to identify areas where an installation can or should be improved as regulations have changed to reflect advances in knowledge and technology.
 
I think, as you well know, the regulations are not retrospective and so would be acceptable to that previous design. Whether or not it complies to the current edition is something else.
As long as the requirements were met for the appropriate edition then it is regarded as safe. That doesn't mean that updating maybe required due to its application. Otherwise the regulations become retrospective which is not what it states in BS7671.

The risk assessment will asertain whether its suitable to be used.
 
Of course it matters which edition it was designed to.
If an installation complies with the edition it was designed to, then as per BS7671 it is not unsafe.
It can’t be unsafe, otherwise the IET would be guilty of promoting unsafe installations.
 
Of course it matters which edition it was designed to.
If an installation complies with the edition it was designed to, then as per BS7671 it is not unsafe.
It can’t be unsafe, otherwise the IET would be guilty of promoting unsafe installations.
A perfect example is the fixing of wiring systems against premature collapse.
Knowing what we know now and following the deaths of firefighters, we can’t now say that an installation which complied to the 16 th edition or the 17th pre amendment 3 are necessarily safe in regards to that particular regulation.
Whether it complied before is irrelevant as we are not inspecting the installation to the date it was designed and installed .
It’s safety must be in regard to the current edition of the wiring regulations full stop.
Obviously if any non compliance’s do not warrant a FI ,C1 or C2 code it can be regarded as satisfactory for continued use but have recommended safety improvements issued to the client.
 
Last edited:
A perfect example is the fixing of wiring systems against premature collapse.
Knowing what we know now and following the deaths of firefighters, we can’t now say that an installation which complied to the 16 th edition or the 17th pre amendment 3 are necessarily safe in regards to that particular regulation.
Whether it complied before is irrelevant as we are not inspecting the installation to the date it was designed and installed .
It’s safety must be in regard to the current edition of the wiring regulations full stop.
That’s not a new requirement though is it?
We’ve always been required to install wiring so that it doesn’t present a danger.
All that’s happened, is the IET have addressed poor practices and clarified what is required.
 
That’s not a new requirement though is it?
We’ve always been required to install wiring so that it doesn’t present a danger.
All that’s happened, is the IET have addressed poor practices and clarified what is required.
As far as I’m aware we never had to prevent the wiring throughout the installation collapsing prematurely in the event of a fire.
Cables inside trunking, plastic saddles etc all acceptable as they where In previous editions of the regulations.
No mention of escape routes as that came with the 17 th edition amendment 3.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you were unaware that we were required to prevent the premature collapse of wiring systems in the event of a fire, is exactly why the IET decided to clarify the matter.

Every edition and amendment is published 6 months before it comes into force. During those 6 months, we are allowed to design and construct to either edition or amendment.
After the new edition or amendment comes into force, we are still allowed to construct a design which was made before the the new edition or amendment came into force.
There is no time limit on how long after the new edition or amendment comes into force, that we can construct the design.

If anything in the previous edition or amendment were considered unsafe, we would not be allowed to install anything designed to that edition or amendment.
Allowing us to do so would be endorsing unsafe practices.
 
The fact that you were unaware that we were required to prevent the premature collapse of wiring systems in the event of a fire, is exactly why the IET decided to clarify the matter.

Every edition and amendment is published 6 months before it comes into force. During those 6 months, we are allowed to design and construct to either edition or amendment.
After the new edition or amendment comes into force, we are still allowed to construct a design which was made before the the new edition or amendment came into force.
There is no time limit on how long after the new edition or amendment comes into force, that we can construct the design.

If anything in the previous edition or amendment were considered unsafe, we would not be allowed to install anything designed to that edition or amendment.
Allowing us to do so would be endorsing unsafe practices.

Theyre counting on you being competent and taking into consideration consequences of installing to previous editions etc. Come on. You are digging.
 
The fact that you were unaware that we were required to prevent the premature collapse of wiring systems in the event of a fire, is exactly why the IET decided to clarify the matter.

Every edition and amendment is published 6 months before it comes into force. During those 6 months, we are allowed to design and construct to either edition or amendment.
After the new edition or amendment comes into force, we are still allowed to construct a design which was made before the the new edition or amendment came into force.
There is no time limit on how long after the new edition or amendment comes into force, that we can construct the design.

If anything in the previous edition or amendment were considered unsafe, we would not be allowed to install anything designed to that edition or amendment.
Allowing us to do so would be endorsing unsafe practices.
Don’t insult my intelligence please , “the fact I was unaware “
Clutching at straws.
If it was required at the time it would have been in the regulations.
Double pole fusing was once a requirement, how did that one go?
So you must be stating that you’ve always installed wiring systems against premature collapse?
Ever since you’ve been an electrician you’ve always installed metal fixings to hold the cable in place inside trunking?
 
Theyre counting on you being competent and taking into consideration consequences of installing to previous editions etc. Come on. You are digging.
Not at all.
I worked on the Athelete’s village at the Queen Elizabeth Park in Stratford.
Completed in March 2015, constructed to the 16th edition.
 
I'm surprised that the top plate of the CCU has been removed although the hole sizes would be the same and the IP rating when the front cover is replaced fullfills IP4X. Glanding off the SWA is not a problem if it is done before the board is fitted. The SWA is/was used, I presume, with supplementary bonding in place and to aviod the necessity to fit RCDs and also assumes this lnstall was completed before the 18th ed.
Is this really a C2? C3 max and a note regarding the lack of RCDs

Taking all things wrong with the install into consideration i say C2.
Tha angle which swa enters means that the connections are under stress.
Theres alot of dust inside the consumer units due to the large hole. Theres a draft so anything could enter it etc insualtion...
I believe c2 also for the lack of rcd protection due to them being in a commercial premesis and not being used for fridges in all cases also not labelled and no RA.
I stick to my original coding.
 
Don’t insult my intelligence please , “the fact I was unaware “
Clutching at straws.
If it was required at the time it would have been in the regulations.
Double pole fusing was once a requirement, how did that one go?
So you must be stating that you’ve always installed wiring systems against premature collapse?
Ever since you’ve been an electrician you’ve always installed metal fixings to hold the cable in place inside trunking?
I have never, to this day used metal fixings inside trunking to hold cable in place.
Never had the need to.
 

Reply to Poor install EICR 12 year old hotel in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock