EICR Coding Guide
EICR Coding Guide
The most often asked questions amongst electricians are regarding what EICR code should be assigned to an item when found on an inspection.
Sadly, there is no single official IET BS7671 ‘EICR coding guide’, and as such there can often be a lot of misinformation (and misinterpretation) of the requirements. This doesn’t help electricians and it certainly doesn’t help customers, who are often left thinking that the electrician in question can be making things up as they go along, especially in the case of items being unsatisfactory.
There are 2 documents in particular which attempt to address this:
- Electrical Safety First : Best Practise Guide 4 – A short, but very concise guide written by the UKs electrical safety charity. Co-written by all the big names in the industry, including NICEIC, NAPIT, IET & many more. For me, this is the closest we come to an official EICR coding guide
- NAPIT : Codebreakers – A slightly more in depth book, however written only by NAPIT themselves. Although much of the advice correlates with that in BPG4 above, there are a few areas where codebreakers tends to be a little more ‘strict’ in it’s coding.
It is worth mentioning, that all EICR coding is the responsibility of the electrician completing the report at the time. Whilst this guide (and others such as BPG 4 & codebreakers) exist, they cannot cover every eventuality and there are instances where a different code may be appropriate. EICR testing should only be undertaken by those with adequate qualifications and expertise, together with appropriate professional indemnity insurance.
1.0: External condition of intake equipment (visual inspection only)
1.1: Service Cable
C1 - DANGER PRESENT | Any damage to the incoming service cable which exposes bare live conductors |
FI - FURTHER INVESTIGATION | Visible damage to service cable, however no live conductors are visible |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | No support to incoming service cable where this appears to place strain on the connections/service cable |
** It should be noted that wherever there is any doubt over the condition of the condition of the service cable, the best course of action is always to consult the DNO **
Our full guide to 1.1 Condition Of Service Cable inspections
1.2: Service Head
C1 - DANGER PRESENT | Any damage to the incoming service head which exposes bare live conductors |
FI - FURTHER INVESTIGATION | Visible damage to service cable, however no live parts appear accessible (damage to lower cover for example) |
** It should be noted that wherever there is any doubt over the condition of the condition of the service head, the best course of action is always to consult the DNO **
Our full guide to 1.2 Condition Of Service Head inspections
1.3: Earthing Arrangement
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Total absence of distributors earthing arrangement (in instances of TN-S or TN-C-S earthing arrangement supplies) |
FI - FURTHER INVESTIGATION | TN-C-S earthing arrangement supply with an external loop impedance exceeding 0.35Ω |
FI - FURTHER INVESTIGATION | TN-S earthing arrangement supply with an external loop impedance exceeding 0.80Ω |
FI - FURTHER INVESTIGATION | TN-S earthing arrangement supply cable where the sheath clamp is loose or exceedingly corroded |
** It should be noted that wherever there is any doubt over the condition of the condition of the Distributors Earthing Arrangement (only in the instance of TN-S or TN-C-S supplies), the best course of action is always to consult the DNO
Our full guide to 1.3 Condition Of Earthing Arrangement inspections
1.4: Meter Tails
C1 - DANGER PRESENT | Any damage to the meter tails which exposes bare live copper conductor |
C1 - DANGER PRESENT | Poor termination of meter tails at meter, isolator or any henley blocks, which expose bare live copper conductor |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Unsheathed basic insulation visible outside of enclosure - either at meter, isolator or any henley blocks, which is accessible to touch |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | No (or particularly poor) support which places strain on the terminations of the meter tails |
Our full guide to 1.4 Condition Of Meter Tail inspections
1.5: Metering Equipment
** It should be noted that wherever there is any doubt over the condition of the condition of the Metering Equipment, the best course of action is always to consult the Electricity Supplier. They have a different set of regulations and complete coverage of any issue is beyond the scope of this EICR coding guide **
C1 - DANGER PRESENT | Any damage to the meter which exposes bare live parts |
FI - FURTHER INVESTIGATION | Metering equipment is not secured to backboard/wall |
Our full guide to 1.5 Condition Of Metering Equipment inspections
1.6: Isolator (Where Present)
C1 - DANGER PRESENT | Any damage to the isolator which exposes bare live parts |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Any signs of thermal damage to isolator or enclosure |
FI - FURTHER INVESTIGATION | Isolator is not adequately rated for load encountered at installation |
FI - FURTHER INVESTIGATION | Isolator is not secured to backboard/wall |
2.0: Presence Of Adequate Arrangements For Parallel Or Switched Alternative Sources
2.1: Adequate arrangements where a generating set operates as a switched alternative to the public supply
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | No warning labels/notices of other sources of supply |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | No means of connecting generator to earth |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Portable generator set which supplies final circuits/socket circuits directly and is not provided with RCD protection of 30mA or less |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Generator which is used as a switched alternative to a public TN system and has no means of connecting to earth |
2.2: Adequate arrangements where a generating set operates in parallel with the public supply
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | No local isolator to disconnect microgeneration supply from public supply |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | No labels/notices warning of other sources of supply |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Generator not provided with a means of connecting to earth |
3.0: Automatic Disconnection Of Supply
3.1.1: Presence of distributor’s earthing arrangement, or presence of installation earth electrode arrangement
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | No main earthing conductor to TN-S or TN-C-S earthing point |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | No installation earth electrode where installation earthing type is TT |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | No main earthing conductor to TT earth electrode |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Connection of main earthing conductor to earth electrode is not secure |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Connection of main earthing conductor to earth electrode is not with correct clamp type |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Earth electrode connection is not protected against corrosion |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Unsuitable item used as earth electrode (including gas/water service pipes) |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main earthing conductor is not labelled/identified |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main earthing conductor is not adequately secured |
3.1.2: Adequacy of earthing conductor size
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Main earthing conductor is not correctly sized |
3.1.3: Adequacy of earthing conductor connections
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Main earthing conductor has signs of thermal damage |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main earthing terminal is damaged |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main earthing terminal has poor connections |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main earthing terminal is damaged |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main earthing terminal does not have means of disconnection of main earthing conductor |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main earthing terminal has corrosion |
3.1.4: Accessibility of earthing conductor connections
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main earthing conductor connections are not accessible for inspection |
3.1.5: Adequacy of main protective bonding conductor sizes
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Main protective bonding conductors are not adequately sized |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Main protective bonding conductors to incoming service pipework are less than 6mm |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main protective bonding conductor to service pipework is 6mm, has no thermal damage and the supply earthing arrangement is a TN-C-S |
3.1.6: Adequacy and location of main protective bonding conductor connections
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | No main protective bonding conductors installed to incoming service pipework (where pipework is an extraneous conductive part) |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Other extraneous conductive parts which do not have main protective bonding conductors (structural steel/lightning protection/etc...) |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Use of main protective bonding conductor to service pipework (gas/water/oil) as a means of earthing |
C2 - POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS | Extraneous conductive parts enter building in more than one location yet do not have main protective bonding to each location |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main protective bonding connection has been made with incorrect termination/clamp type |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Main protective bonding connection not made within 600mm of service entry to building |
C3 - IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDED | Use of common main protective bonding conductor, however cable is not continuous |
3.1.7: Accessibility of all protective bonding connections
3.1.8: Provision of earthing/bonding labels at all appropriate locations
Our full guide to 3.1.8 Presence Of Earthing & Bonding Label inspections
3.2: FELV – requirements satisfied
Further EICR Coding Resources
If you need any further help after following our EICR coding guide (we hope it was in depth enough for you!), then you can always check the following external resources:
Please, if you have any queries, questions, or indeed you don’t agree with any of the coding recommendations laid out in this guide then comment below and we can discuss further.
It is worth mentioning, that all EICR coding is the responsibility of the electrician completing the report at the time. Whilst this guide (and others such as BPG 4 & codebreakers) exist, they cannot cover every eventuality and there are instances where a different code may be appropriate. EICR testing should only be undertaken by those with adequate qualifications and expertise, together with appropriate professional indemnity insurance.
