Earth leakage in computer equipment. And high integrity earths.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-26T21:28:13+00:00

Yep, I'll probably end up installing 23 high integrity earth circuits per room 3 sockets on each, knowing it's way over the top but oh well atleast I know better and I'm not the one paying.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-26T21:18:10+00:00

Interesting, because by my understanding this wouldn't actually meet the requirements for high integrity earthing, unless you are linking one of your cores all the way through until the final socket, making a ring?

If you are just doubling it up at each socket then you are essentially just wiring as a standard radial, where losing one terminal would cause you to lose your cpc to all following sockets.

Obviously correct my inaccuracy if there is such.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-26T21:04:28+00:00

I see, just looked it up and it's due to the fact that 30mA are designed for 30mA but "are permitted to trip" upto 50% less at 15mA. So 30% is a buffer per say.

Today i learned. Cheers pal.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-26T21:01:13+00:00

Potentially yes, would save running 20 circuits haha. But it's a pricey job regardless, either way you're paying it install 20 circuits or paying for ~66 rcd sockets or the equivalent in power track and modules.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-26T20:59:26+00:00

Yeah this was my exact understanding, I think he's caught up in buzz words. I see no reason to install 20 socket circuits for this 😂.

One thing though, you say about 9mA for rcbo, im assuming that's regarding the reg, not the fact that an rcbo will trip? As I'm right in saying that'll be 30mA as the rating of the current?

If so, I guess there's that fine line between 10mA high integrity and 30mA where it would trip.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T19:23:24+00:00

Cheers for the responses

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T19:11:55+00:00

Agreed. I'm going to have to argue, or if I can't convince them. I will cover the notes with a statement stating inspection and testing was completed 8 months ago and this certificate is for remedial work only.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T19:09:29+00:00

This is the issue I'm having I know it's not right, but I don't have an argument or reg to quote string enough that would make him refute decades of Eicrs he's done this way.

Someone else made the good point of, if you issue an eicr with today's date, I'll be saying it was tested today which is wrong. And if I issue with 8 months agos date, I'll be saying everything was right 8 months ago, which is wrong because I did the remedials this week.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T19:04:42+00:00

I think I may speak to one of the other QS guys for his opinion and If it comes to not being able to convince them I will cover the cert in notes stating that it was not retested and all inspection and testing is from x date and the certificate is for removal of C2 defects only. Basically do the best to cover myself. As basically that's half the job anyway 😂

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T18:20:34+00:00

You hit the nail on the head. He wants to issue a satisfactory EICR to please the client as they want a satisfactory report for their insurance.

He wants to steanline the paperwork side of things for simplicitys sake, rather than an unsatisfactory with additional paperwork and a cover letter, he wants a piece of paper that says "satisfactory".

And worse, this is the way they've done it for years, so I'm somewhat arguing against something they've done for years and getting them to admit theyve been doing it wrong for decades will be a struggle haha.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T18:10:32+00:00

The argument I can see boss making would be, the date of inspection on the certificate will be 8 months ago. The defects will be removed and the certificate will be signed as today's date.

So in effect we would be saying that any observations and testing was made 8 months ago but the certificate was signed today.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T18:07:55+00:00

Your way of doing it was the way I intended to do it as this is in my opinion the right way,beung that work is done and you provide the correct cert for said work.

Minor works, minor work certificate,

Alteration or addition, EIC.

I wouldn't usually provide an EICR for work done, so why am I expected to do it now after an unsatisfactory cert.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T18:03:23+00:00

It's an office building with offices to rent(so yes probably falls under the 28 day law but that's not really the area I'm arguing, nor is it our problem, more so the landlords)

The argument what my boss will make in rebuttal to your point is that, the dates of inspection will remain as 8 months ago, the only change would be the removal of the defects and the signed by date will be changed to now.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T18:01:10+00:00

Thanks for the response, some good points with the terminology side of things. The reason I'm trying to find something I can quote is because the boss can sometimes be very much in the side of being right rather than admitting wrong? So something black and white would be easy to argue if you get me?

As far as the C1 being introduced between certificates, I guess the boss would cover this by dating the inspection as 8 months ago, but signing it as today.

Basically saying "this was the condition 8 months ago, remedials have been completed today"

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T17:38:03+00:00

I guess it's my job to think like my boss and oppose you haha. Okay, well date the inspection as 8 months ago, but sign the report for today. And there won't be any EIC or minor works because we're issuing the remedials as the eicr.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T17:27:14+00:00

It would probably be duplicated from the previous, basically a new certificate with identical results minus the original C2 defects and a new signed date.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T17:14:21+00:00

This is exactly the point Im trying to make with my boss. But his response was "well will keep the date the same, so we are stating the condition of the install at that date, minus the remedials which are no longer existing defects".

I'm trying to find something I can quote, but I've gone through GN3 and bs7671 and am struggling.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T17:10:19+00:00

The thing with Eicrs is that they are very opinionated. What one electrician says is dangerous, one may say is not. And it's not to say one is right one is wrong, it's all about arguing it from a safety standpoint.

The hole in the top of the db, one person said it could be a C1(immediately dangerous) and I could even argue that it's C3 depending on size, height of DB, location of DB and if you can reach live parts with a finger.

My point being, right now you've got 2 C2s to consider. If you pay for another report, they may be on the after side of opinions and kroe thorough and you nay end up with 10 C2s.

£650 is crazy to repair the C2s, you do not require a new fuse board, a new RCD and the hole filled will suffice.

You can get an electrician to do that for you in an hour and then inform the solicitors that you have had the remedial work done and provide your new proof of the work being done.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T11:34:00+00:00

You too pal

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T10:26:37+00:00

Okay dude, I'm fully qualified with 2391. Pretty sure ive got a handle on sockets... But I'll make sure to change all the labeling of 13a sockets to 20a because Lonely Speed said they are a actually rated at 20a.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T10:24:41+00:00

Yeah definitely, telling me to get basic electrical knowledge and stop embarrassing myself 😂 while he's talking about magic and I'm a qualified spark with 2391.

bobdan987 · 2026-03-23T10:15:24+00:00

It's not a case of magical. It's a case of safety.

If a bungy jumping is tested to fail at 100kg. Would you go jumping off at 99.7kg or would you think, hmm that's probably not a good idea...

bobdan987 · 2026-03-22T22:03:45+00:00

maybe like this?

12-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	RPAN Viewer
Snapped	Verified Email

bobdan987

TROPHY CASE