Thatched property, 2 story, tncs. 16th ed install.

I don't do EICR's but I don't think any of these should have been give codes,
The report was needed for insurance purposes and they are saying all codes should be put right.
I would appreciated the forums thoughts on the following "faults"

None fire rate down lights in kitchen C3

No smoke alarms C3

PVC cable in roof space C3

Cheers

Vince

-------------------------
Vince

Prove Dead Stay Alive


Christmas Cards for trades people

http://www.tradegreetingcards.com

There are 2 things to be aware of here - BS7671, and the insurance Co. requirements.
They are not always the same thing. If it is thatched, the Ins. Co. may require protected cable in roof space, or MICC etc. That could be a requirement in BS7671, as the cable must be suitable for its surroundings.
Non-fire rated downlights - possible a C3 if the space above them is flammable, or they are not suitable for their location - Ins. Co. requirements (or local Building Control rules) may over-ride BS7671, and require that no such fittings are used. You would really need to see their fitment and location to comment if they do not comply.
Smoke alarms - I dont think this has anything to do with an EICR/BS7671, but is likely to be a Ins. Co. and Building Control requirement.

An EICR is strictly to BS7671. None of these should be coded. If an insurer wants an inspection to a different set of rules (some do) then they need to supply the documentation, and expect to pay the price for the inspector becoming familiar with it. The risk of electrical fires in thatched roof spaces is grossly exaggerated. Smoke alarms are a good idea, but come from the building regs, so may warrant a comment but not a code, As the cottage is presumably only a single dwelling and the roof space otherwise empty, what purpose would the fire rated downlights carry out? They might prevent the spread of a bad kitchen fire for a short period, but as soon as a window broke or was left open the thatch would catch anyway.
I could be cynical and say that this was completed to make remedials easy work but expensive!

-------------------------
David
CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question!

LoL - I just love it - why are we happy to bash people who have clearly acted in a responsible fashion in terms of the comments but possibly used the "wrong" medium to communicate those comments - albeit it's probably the only mechanism available to the inspector given the usal mechanism of appointment.

Take a look at page 406, as an example, as to why comments on the downlights may be appropriate, perhaps check out guidance from several scheme providers regaring immersion heater over temp cut outs - is a comment on AFD so inapropriate ? -

regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

A bit tricky not recording items that are not covered by BS7671 as the first 6 items on the EICR schedule of inspections are specifically excluded by Regulation 110.2 item i.

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/

Hi Vince, I'm with you, these items arent codable(unless the downlights are in a fire-rated ceiling) where the inspection is to identify items that don't meet the requirements of BS7671- where an insurer has particular requirements for an installation over and above those of BS7671 they should send out specific forms to the customer that can be filled in by the appointed competent person in addition to the EICR.

I do wonder how much was in the brown envelope that lead to this being included in the schedule of inspections!

Take for example item 1.3, condition of distributors tails, unless you break the seals only the visible part of the distrubributors tails condition can be assessed

The extra items on the EICR are from BS7671, so I haven't mentioned those, and are covered by 631.2. I agree they can be a bit tricky!

However items not on the form are irrelevant, particularly those from other sources such as the building regulations. There seems to be a general idea by various people who decide such things, that anyone giving any kind of certificate of compliance should be made to give a blanket one for everything, a bit like a CE mark which says "this ... complies with ALL applicable legislation, and any other documents which there may be, for example H&S compliance. This kind of idea transfers all the risks of some future problem to the inspector, without a corresponding remuneration (being paid for the risk). It is also extremely difficult to be sure one has done the job completely, because there can always be a widening of scope of which one is not aware.

In my view it is unreasonable to ask for an EICR, and then object because I did not test the fire evacuation routes for compliance with a completely different set of regulations. Ditto building regulations (loads of scope there), fire alarms, emergency lighting, and just about everything else.

OMS, I am not bashing anyone. You can report anything you like, but you cannot use an unsatisfactory code for it on an EICR! You know as well as I do OMS that "scope creep" and "features creep" cause more trouble to the construction industry than almost anything else. We have an exact specification, lets stick to it.

-------------------------
David
CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question!

Oh and JohnP, that is the regulation of them 110.2 item i, not the inspection, covered by 631.2. A bit pedantic I know, but then that's scope creep for you!

-------------------------
David
CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question!

Dave Z

631.2 refers to Appendix 6 and as we know Appendix 6 is informative along with all the other Appendices, except Appendix 1 which is normative, so the contents of these appendices are not regulations but are for guidance.

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/

Not aimed at you personally David - just my musings - and you don't need to tell me about scope creep - you'll find plenty of posts from me on here with comments such as "don't accept the responsibility of the duty holder - that way there be dragons" and the like.

I just found it ironic that we have a concurrent thread lambasting someone for an inaequate EICR (PIR) with all sorts of threats of going to the scheme provider etc.

As for an exact specification though, I think not - we have a very inexact specification and a little aspect known as "LIM".

Given that BS 7671 mentions specifically both BS 5266 and BS 5839 - are they actually so far out of scope?

I accept that if present, the electrical aspects of the fire alarm system or emergency lighting system need to comply with BS 7671 (indeed the relevant parts of the standards refer back to BS 7671 - so it's a bit circular) - not the case here, but clearly items 1 and 3 are covered by BS 7671 - and in a thatched cottage, may well be relevant comments.

personally i don't have any problem pointing out a lack of domestic AFD - Code 3 - refer to regulation 560.10 and 110.1.3 -

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

Well done both of you, although I was actually quoting from chapter 63 not the appendix with the actual form. I'm just trying to clear the minefield slightly as usual. If we stick to the green book we should be OK, I usually am, and "based on" is an invitation for scope creep! But one has to admit that the EICR thing is generally not working very well, neither are the schemes. I live in NI although I get around a fair bit. Here most electricians are NICEIC DIs or nothing, a few of the larger contractors are full scope. I don't think the quality of work is worse than England with part P, some is good and some is dreadful. Our accident rate is said to be about the same as England per population, lots of small farms which haven't seen a sparks for 30 years, loads of TT installs with old VO ELCBs etc. So the average EICR has a couple of C1s, but it seems that these rarely translate into accidents, the correlation isn't there. This is probably the reason that people get away with poor EICRs, there is almost no risk whatever you say, and there is a huge incentive to make out that everything is bad because a lot of people then ask to have it all fixed at any price. All of the above is simply reinforcing this impression, but it is not good for our standing or the country as a whole.

-------------------------
David
CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question!