Electrical Installation Condition Report Sample - Part 3

[@ishkebab]

No code for the CU being plastic, unless the CU is located In a sole escape route or under a wooden staircase as per best practice guide 4, always worth a mention in the notes section on your condition report tho. To add, a BSEN61008 RCCB and a 61009 Rcbo at 1x Idelta N should trip within 300mS , not 200mS

[@SME_Ste]

Nice comment with regards the 61008 trip time at 1x Idelta N

[@tomorichard]

Steven Murphy unless providing fault protection to a TT system👍

[@titmando1199]

I noticed that too, when he was going through it in my head I was answering what the number should be when he said 200ms and I thought 300ms I got my book out because I didn't think that was right :D - we're only human we all make mistakes.

[@artisanelectrics]

Has it always been 300ms? I’m sure I learnt 200 at college.

[@ishkebab]

Artisan Electrics 200mS at 1x Idelta N for rcd’s to bs4293

[@ibrahimabdullah4430]

I agree with you. I would code it C3 as well. And also let the customer know about it.

[@markgilder9990]

Would 500VDC through the RCD’s damage them?

[@hanlong-leadingpliermanufa6011]

Good Job. Thank you for the video.

[@kennyboyle6157]

Hi Jordan Great videos love them, in my industry we forbid any metal jewellery to be worn when working on electrical equipment Particularly live exposed conductors EAWR 1989 a colleague of mine touched a bus bar with his gold ring - his ring deformed cut into his finger - finger swollen and became septic within an hour and he had to get finger removed He was criticised by mgt he was told not to wear any metal jewellery even necklace which can easily make contact Hope this helps enjoy your videos mate

[@artisanelectrics]

Thanks yeah I need to start removing my rings at work you're right it could be a hazard

[@darrenplant619]

On the esf best practice guide page 16 it says: located under a wooden stairs or within a sole route of escape from the premises. if unsatisfactory connections are found during the inspection, this would warrant a c2.

[@crumps84]

Could you not of, when doing the RCD tests, turn on one of the circuit breakers and test on the out going of that, save you going of the bus bar? I was always told to do the test button after the RCD tests, just because you are putting a fault through it therefore you now need to make sure it still trips after your testing.

[@Marco-mg9tv]

Or use one of the sockets would be even better/safer looks like there’s sockets on either side of the board

[@Hammy135]

Hello, did you code the tails after? It seems it has been standard practice to run tails long distances like this in domestic properties for a while.

[@artisanelectrics]

This isn't a long distance its less than 3m so its fine.

[@davidclarke2513]

I don't see it even at a code 3 because it was compliant when installed and as long as the cables and mcbs and rcds pass all relevant 18th edition passes then the board complies with the edition when installed and unless their are changes as regards new circuits being wired into the consumer unit it doesn't need to comply with the 18th edition because if it was law then a red notice would be applied to all plastic consumer units and none would be allowed to be sold

[@RWATraineeElectrician]

Great video, thanks for sharing 👍

[@Danny-do2ov]

Code c3 if you wish bud, normally I'd write within the notes section on the EICR. Also x1 within 300ms mate and x5 40ms. Great upload as always tho 🖒 Top Guy!

[@artisanelectrics]

Thanks! Didn't realise it had changed to 300ms?!

[@Danny-do2ov]

@@artisanelectrics Great work as always mate, love the content!

[@skuula]

Is fire retardant plastic a combustible material?

[@ashmanelectricalservices4318]

It's a bit worrying that some don't think a CU made from combustible materials warrants a classification code, it's a requirement of BS 7671 that all CU be made from a non combustible material so a plastic CU is clearly a departure from this regulation and as such warrants a code.

[@ishkebab]

Ashman Electrical Services Not all non compliance’s require coding, why would recommending replacing a perfectly fine CU with a metal one be warranted if it’s fit for continued use and safe? By coding it a C3 then your telling the client that although it’s not potentially dangerous a safety improvement is recommended, which is not true if the CU is in good condition for continued use. It’s almost as bad as people who code switch lines that aren’t sleeved or identified by colour or coding red and black wiring.

[@ashmanelectricalservices4318]

@@markyd2633 None, as it's a C3 for me.

[@MOG4SALVATION]

Awesome

[@stuartbrown2567]

Hi another good video. How come you never connect L&N together and test at earth? Do you have a reason for not doing it

[@Blackf1ngers]

I would presume because he can achieve a satisfactory result testing L-E and N-E. If so there's no point linking L&N and testing to earth. That test is just a way round if you can't guarantee there's nothing delicate connected (ie occupied shithole houses where you can't get at everything).

[@Marco-mg9tv]

Why would connecting live and neutral together protect any sensitive equipment that may be connected any more than testing L-E and N-E independently ?

[@AdamCookeTV]

mark fardon Because the voltage applied to both L and N will be the same and thus the difference will be 0V.

[@Marco-mg9tv]

Adam Cooke yes I agree with that but it doesn’t answer my question. if you are applying say 500v across L&E or N&E you are not applying any voltage across any load connected between L&N so why would there be a risk to any sensitive devices ?

[@SME_Ste]

I was taught that connecting both the LN together resulting in haveing both conductors at 500v then if a component within any connected equipment fails under the IR test, you can’t get 500v suddenly going across the load

[@Spark101.]

Nice video again matey! Just so you know.....The plastic CU is a code 3. 100% Just think about it for a minute. What is the purpose of the report? One of the purposes is to identify any non-compliance’s with the current edition of BS7671 which may give rise to danger. That is stated in ‘Guidance note 4’ also. The current regulations state, specifically 421.1.201....that all domestic consumer units should be constructed of non combustible material because they have realised that plastic consumer units give rise to danger in dwellings. The reg doesn’t say ‘only if installed under stairs, or in escape routes’! It clearly indicates that ALL consumer units in domestic dwellings need to meet this criteria or be housed within a cabinet or enclosure of non combustible material. Therefore a plastic consumer unit ANYWHERE in a dwelling is non compliant to current standards, a standard that was changed on the grounds of safety. Why would you not bring it to the clients attention and recommend improvement?? You’re not really doing your job properly if you don’t! Remember......a C3 is not a fail, so the client gains nothing from you keeping it off the report! Lastly, (bearing in mind that EICR’s are carried out to the latest version of the regs), on your schedule of inspected items; (item 4.4). What exactly will you put in this box if the CU is plastic, and was installed to the 16th? It isn’t Non applicable. It isn’t a code 1 or 2. FI Maybe?? No......it’s obviously a code 3. An EICR form/report asks you directly about the ‘condition of enclosure in terms of fire rating’ under the consumer unit section. This needs to be answered. It’s either plastic or metal. It’s either compliant or not. If non compliant to current standards.....was it compliant on the day it was installed? Once you answer these questions, you can code it. But trust me.....it warrants a code in any case. Now......if this is incorrect; I’m open to someone explaining to me how you can answer this direct question on the EICR form with an N/A. In my mind, it is only non applicable if there is no consumer unit at all in the first place!

[@ishkebab]

K C Not all non compliance’s regarding bs7671 requires coding. To code the CU a C3 is saying that a improvement for safety is recommended, how is replacing a perfectly fine ( tho yes no longer compliant CU ) if fit for purpose, making the installation safer? If you’ve concluded that they are no issues regarding loose connections etc, then why recommend an improvement of safety? An example of non compliance’s that don’t require coding but are worthy of note on the report is given in best practice number 4, such as a plastic CU if fit for purpose. Also by ticking the box regarding fire performance, your confirming just that, that the CU is not a fire hazard, which it’s not if your inspection has confirmed it’s fit for continued use. This box is in the schedule of inspections for all EICR reports, not just domestic dwellings. Of course you are the inspector so if you feel a C3 minimum is what you want to put down then that’s upto the individual’s approach of their risk assessment regarding this particular issue, which is the reason a C3 is suggested when the CU is located in an increased fire location or a sole means of escape.

[@Spark101.]

Regulation (421.1.201) was added because too many fires started in CU’s in dwellings and due to the plastic construction the fire spread. Metal consumer units were introduced to reduce the spread of fires that started in a CU. Let’s say, a plastic consumer unit with tight terminals and no thermal damage, correct sizing of cables in coordination with MCBs etc etc.....Has a safety rating of 3/5. The same unit, but constructed of metal has a safety rating of 5\5. You are being paid to advise your client on the condition of the installation, and inspecting against current standards. I ask you.....why would you not bring it to your clients attention about the plastic CU and recommend improvement? By giving it a C3, you are already saying it’s safe. You’re just also saying the CU can be improved to current standards and you recommend it. Also; what would you actually put on the schedule at point 4.4?? Putting N/A isn’t acceptable. The question is basically; is the CU fire rated? Not, ‘is it still safe although it’s plastic, and installed to another edition?’

[@Spark101.]

Sparky MacSparkface Any good sparky will have copies mate

[@Spark101.]

And just to add.....a code 3 is ‘improvement recommended’. Doesn’t mention ‘For safety’

[@Spark101.]

If you read the ‘Notes for recipients’ part of an EICR report......you’ll understand that a Code 3 is correct. Unless changing a plastic consumer unit to a metal consumer unit isn’t a ‘significant’ safety improvement. If it isn’t.....it begs the question why they changed the requirement in the 1st place.

[@simonashdown6684]

Consumer unit made of non cumbustible material. Why do places like screwfix still sell plastic.

[@Spark101.]

I must say Jordan. Your last 3 videos have really caused a stir with coding! Lol!

[@artisanelectrics]

Yeah its funny what puts the cat amongst the pigeons!

[@simonaragon1992]

PEFC & PSCC The greater value of these two tests being the PFC.

[@artisanelectrics]

Thanks

[@dowhemming5331]

I Agree with Anthony charles Well said If its one of those dodgy ones where the manufacturers simply put a british standard sticker on it, knowing that it failed the hot wire test you would be within your right to put a code 1, and replaced at the manufacturers expense, like thats going to happen. And everyone in the industry has had a bout of amnesia and swept it under the very big carpet. If that was car related there would have been a recall. Or you could ask London fire brigade, they seem to be writing our regs now. There was nothing wrong with a correctly manufactured and installed plastic consumer unit, instead of dealing with the cause they have tried to deal with the symptoms

[@garethg2501]

C3 all day long, although it would not warrant an unsatisfactory report. EDIT: To clarify, I understand usually it wouldn't be a C3 if not under the stairs. However it is in very close proximity to the bottom of the stairs. But also as the cable entry is through the back with a great big hole in it. For all I know (not been on site) that is a stud wall, whereby fire could quite easily spread rapidly and the plasterboard is of unknown origin. Making assumptions as I haven't been on site. :)

[@stephenclark8402]

What if the plastic consumer unit is within a wooden cupboard next to a gas combi boiler?

[@ashmanelectricalservices4318]

I can't believe you passed 500V through an RCD 😯

[@ishkebab]

Ashman Electrical Services He didn’t pass 500v between live conductors so it’s absolutely no problem regarding an rcd or any connected loads/electronics

[@ashmanelectricalservices4318]

@@ishkebab Yes, I get that the 500V weren't passed through the line and neutral consecutively but IMO it'd be better practice to have the RCD's in the open position when IR test from the load side of the RCD.

[@acelectricalsecurity]

If its one of those dodgy ones where the manufacturers simply put a british standard sticker on it, knowing that it failed the hot wire test you would be within your right to put a code 1, and replaced at the manufacturers expense, like thats going to happen. And everyone in the industry has had a bout of amnesia and swept it under the very big carpet. If that was car related there would have been a recall. Or you could ask London fire brigade, they seem to be writing our regs now. There was nothing wrong with a correctly manufactured and installed plastic consumer unit, instead of dealing with the cause they have tried to deal with the symptoms.

[@ashmanelectricalservices4318]

C3, as you said there's no signs of visual or thermal damage at the CU... C3 means improvement recommended so a metal CU would be an improvement over the existing CU.

[@artisanelectrics]

Yeah Napit and NICEIC recommend C3, it definitely warrants a mention.

[@ishkebab]

Artisan Electrics actually they don’t, the code breakers and best practice guide suggest no code unless it’s in a sole escape route, I believe you have the book and the BPG is available as a free download so by all means take a look. 👀

[@artisanelectrics]

Yeah but this is in an escape route it’s right next to the front door and stairs

[@ishkebab]

Artisan Electrics If it’s the sole escape route then fair enough 👍🏻

[@aaronmdjones]

@@ishkebab Being at the bottom of the stairs absolutely classifies it as a "sole escape route" as far as anyone upstairs is concerned. Unless you reasonably expect people to be jumping out of first-story windows.

[@lukeboy94yo]

Did you not fancy putting the neutral probe in for the RCD.. It is actually concerning seeing your test procedure. I think a read up in GN3 is in order or a refresher course. Sorry to say.

[@johnway2039]

depends on the tester... some offer a 2low test which only requires two probes. others use a 3 low which need all 3 connections

[@cumberland1234]

It depends on the make of test instrument as to wether or not a neutral connection is required, even if it does need it the connection is probably only to power the test instrument. I use a Megger 1741 and the instructions say line and earth for RCD tests.

[@Spark101.]

😂😂 So many fresh out of college Sparky’s who have only used one type of instrument. Sorry to say...... (Just banter.....no offence intended)

[@cumberland1234]

One mistake I think Alistair made was to do the RCD tests before loop test - I know the sequence of tests isn’t as important in an EICR but it does say in GN3 that the earth loop should be carried out prior to RCD testing in the RCD testing section. I think it is to do with exposed metalwork potentially becoming live if there isn’t an earth fault loop for the duration of the test, though I wouldn’t be surprised if modern testers have some sort of inbuilt protection for this.

[@SME_Ste]

Is Luke on about RCD test? Its only a line and earth connection needed on my Megger, not sure about the Fluke.

[@cainzach1]

I watch the few of your videos and they do give me concerns. I will have to ask do you really understand the sequence. What I have seen is not the correct procedure you are follow or any sequence laid down in OSG or GN3. If this is the standard of your work bring the electrical industry poor workmanship with this video.. If you have carried this sequence out when you would have done your 2 391 practical exam it would have been referred. Also misleading how to carry out the correct sequence of testing as shown in the video.

[@ishkebab]

Brian Baker The sequence of testing laid out in GN3 and the OSG is for initial verification, for an EICR the sequence of tests are irrelevant as the installation is already in service. Note 3 from GN3 page 99 clearly states that the tests need not be carried out in the order shown in the table, and why would they?

[@kylepeace3252]

What Ian said 👍🏼

[@Spark101.]

Well said Ian. Ironically.....it would seem a certain other person is a little unclear on testing! 👀

[@SME_Ste]

Well said ian, not understood by many i think

[@tomorichard]

In the real world you test what you can how you can when you get the chance, as previously stated a new installed should be tested as per stated sequence to avoid turning on a dangerous circuit. Find something less pedantic to moan a about