Unable to find earth rod when doing EICR

[Deuce]

The reality is that the customer can simply ignore your advice - but that's their choice

Either way it's the correct thing for the professional to suggest. The current setup can't be assessed so best to either correct it or walk away.

I suppose it always helps to be quite firm 'this is not correct'.... 'this will get flagged when if you need to sell'... 'for all I know this is only currently testing acceptably because the ground in damp, there may be no rod at all and on the day you need it there may be a different result'...

 

[TJ Anderson]

Either way it's the correct thing for the professional to suggest. The current setup can't be assessed so best to either correct it or walk away.

I suppose it always helps to be quite firm 'this is not correct'.... 'this will get flagged when if you need to sell'... 'for all I know this is only currently testing acceptably because the ground in damp, there may be no rod at all and on the day you need it there may be a different result'...

On a more positive note, at least you know it's not going to be disturbed lol

 

[Risteard]

Yes, I didn't think of Lim. I agree the Limitations before hand, but i see know reason why you cant have limitations throughout the job that were unforeseen before hand.
Cheers guys.

You are forgetting that there are two distinct types of limitations:

1) Agreed limitations, which you have alluded to, and;

2) Operational limitations. These aren't a matter of agreement - they are a matter of not being able to do something for whatever reason (e.g. presence of a suspected ACM means you cannot disturb something).

 

[Deuce]

On a more positive note, at least you know it's not going to be disturbed lol

True. No debate about what constitutes accessible on this one! It's basically fine so long as it a) tests ok and b) the rod actually exists... I'm going to stick with best advice being a new rod

 

[markc123]

Evening chaps and SC...

I was carrying out an EICR today. I could not find the earth rod anywhere. I could see a 10mm leaving the CU and going down the wall of the porch then it goes at an angle through the wall (towards the outside) and then I cannot see anything else. Following the angle through the wall to the outside (20cm) leads to a conctrete step at the front entrance of the house. I think it's been concreted in.

I have 2 questions..

1. What do I put for 'presence and condition of earth electrode connection'? I guess it should be FI, but a degree of common sense has to be used as the chap is not going to let me dig up his front step. The resistance to earth of this cable was 63Ω.

2. What do I put as the Ze? Do I assume this is the Main Earth cable?

I can clearly see the pathway of the gas bonding. The water is bonded so this could be the Main Bond for the water but it's unlikely as there is a better pathway for the other 10mm leaving the CU to the water.

My thoughts are that I put NV for question 1 above and 63Ω for the Ze (with a note in the summary saying this is assuming that is the Main Earth cable)?

You have 2 questions, I have 1:

Why do you automatically presume Rod?

What’s to say you haven’t got an earth plate electrode?

Anyway, let’s presume Rod. You have no idea whether:
A) the rod is of suitable material & size despite the decent reading.
B) whether it’s correctly installed via a clamp and not just wrapped round said Rod.
C) there’s a safety notice alongside the rod which is a requirement.
D) whether there’s an inspection pit installed above.

All the above are requirements and because you can’t verify this, the rod is unidentified, inaccessible & unsuitable for testing and maintenance purposes. Therefore it’s a FI on the certificate alongside an unsatisfactory. I can’t understand some of these comments on this thread if I’m being honest, it’s black or white with me and can’t see how a LIM is acceptable on something so important.

I’d personally explain to the client that they’ll be getting an unsatisfactory report unless they pay X amount (not that much if we’re being fair) and to have another rod installed. I’m sure once this is explained they’ll cough up.

New Rod the way to go IMO.

 

[Deuce]

You have 2 questions, I have 1:

Why do you automatically presume Rod?

What’s to say you haven’t got an earth plate electrode?

Anyway, let’s presume Rod. You have no idea whether:
A) the rod is of suitable material & size despite the decent reading.
B) whether it’s correctly installed via a clamp and not just wrapped round said Rod.
C) there’s a safety notice alongside the rod which is a requirement.
D) whether there’s an inspection pit installed above.

All the above are requirements and because you can’t verify this, the rod is unidentified, inaccessible & unsuitable for testing and maintenance purposes. Therefore it’s a FI on the certificate alongside an unsatisfactory. I can’t understand some of these comments on this thread if I’m being honest, it’s black or white with me and can’t see how a LIM is acceptable on something so important.

I’d personally explain to the client that they’ll be getting an unsatisfactory report unless they pay X amount (not that much if we’re being fair) and to have another rod installed. I’m sure once this is explained they’ll cough up.

New Rod the way to go IMO.

Exactly, it's not really relevant if it tests ok, for all we know the OP could be testing just a trailing earth conductor which happens to currently be pushed a few inches into some damp substrate. Come mid summer when it's dried out a bit, the results could be totally different.

If you get to the point that you don't even know what you're testing, then it's time to take a step back and address that problem.

New rod. It's the most important termination in the entire property so it's the last to take any sort of chance on.

 

[Nigel]

Common sense needs to prevail. So long as fault protection is correct how can you fail this cert?

I would consider shortening the retest period.

 

[Nigel]

You have 2 questions, I have 1:

Why do you automatically presume Rod?

What’s to say you haven’t got an earth plate electrode?

Anyway, let’s presume Rod. You have no idea whether:
A) the rod is of suitable material & size despite the decent reading.
B) whether it’s correctly installed via a clamp and not just wrapped round said Rod.
C) there’s a safety notice alongside the rod which is a requirement.
D) whether there’s an inspection pit installed above.

All the above are requirements and because you can’t verify this, the rod is unidentified, inaccessible & unsuitable for testing and maintenance purposes. Therefore it’s a FI on the certificate alongside an unsatisfactory. I can’t understand some of these comments on this thread if I’m being honest, it’s black or white with me and can’t see how a LIM is acceptable on something so important.

I’d personally explain to the client that they’ll be getting an unsatisfactory report unless they pay X amount (not that much if we’re being fair) and to have another rod installed. I’m sure once this is explained they’ll cough up.

New Rod the way to go IMO.

All the above are C3 recommendations and do not warrant an ‘Unsatisfactory’ report.

 

[Nigel]

Exactly, it's not really relevant if it tests ok, for all we know the OP could be testing just a trailing earth conductor which happens to currently be pushed a few inches into some damp substrate. Come mid summer when it's dried out a bit, the results could be totally different.

If you get to the point that you don't even know what you're testing, then it's time to take a step back and address that problem.

New rod. It's the most important termination in the entire property so it's the last to take any sort of chance on.

It is completely relevant that it tests ok. What are you on about?

 

[Deuce]

Common sense needs to prevail. So long as fault protection is correct how can you fail this cert?

I would consider shortening the retest period.

Because for reasons laid out it could be testing fine today, and under different circumstances it would fail.

No one knows what it's connected too nor the condition of it. Just because it's technically passed doesn't mean it's common sense to make assumptions about it's actual suitability or safety. That's over reliance on testing imo.

Perhaps a better approach: If you don't know what you're testing, solve that problem first. Then test.