Obvious departures from the regulations at first glance at a new consumer unit.

If you have been asked to carry out an EICR, then do so.

Then highlight the shortfalls/non compliances and ask if they wish you to quote for the remedials.


That is what I would do - but then again I am a qualified and experienced, but not a registered electrician.

could be any of the above or none - we cannot see it or get a feel for the type of installation it is.

What you describe is not that serious on its own - if that is all that has been done. After all a lot of small houses only have one lights circuit anyway, but it rather begs the question what else has been touched with the same hammed fist? What other shortcuts have been taken ?

A full set of tests to be sure that rings really are and earthing gets where it should would be part of a the EIC that this presumably does  not yet have anyway, so ought to be done, but  perhaps allow a bit more in the price for a deeper look than the minimum sampled EIR if cowboy quality is suspected.

Or if your nose smells trouble and you are worried about getting stuck into something bigger that you do not wish to be liable for then maybe someone else should look at it.

Your EICR will tell the story, but only to those who know how to read it:

• Reason for EICR sale of property.

• Date of EICR.

• Date of original installation.

• Details of records available.

• Date of alterations.

to those who read the report the report it should be obvious what went on without it being stated, but it will be missed by the majority of people who read it.


Will anyone care if they realise there’s a missing Building Control notification, probably not and the solicitor can sell the vendor an insurance policy to cover them against a claim from the purchaser.


Andy B.

From the description, the only "obvious" departures are 134.1.1 and 314.1. It is possible that the RCD with the two socket circuits could be overloaded depending upon whatever else it feeds.

Both of those are a bit dodgy from the description Chris, 314.1 (iii) is possibly something which could be improved, but 2 circuits or more is not a requirement as such A quick swap around of a couple of MCB's would fix it anyway. Poor workmanship does not really cover tidy wiring of CUs, it is more proper support of cables and equipment, no exposed primary insulation etc. I think Jaymac has an "I don't like the look of that" point, but that is about it really. If one did more than comment slightly, you are probably overstating the case. It does not sound anything like unsatisfactory to me. On that basis almost all installations would be unsatisfactory. BTW anyone can carry out wiring, because "competent" is not defined in Law, whether it should be is very debateable. It might be a long thread!

Presumably the first item on the EICR will be the lack of certification and you could expand that to pick up the lack of inspection and lack of testing to give quite a few observations which to the "casual reader", should have an impact........................


Regards


BOD

davezawadi:

Both of those are a bit dodgy from the description Chris, 314.1 (iii) is possibly something which could be improved, but 2 circuits or more is not a requirement as such A quick swap around of a couple of MCB's would fix it anyway.

I wondered whether the CU might have been wired in this fashion because the conductors of the socket circuits would not reach any further. My principal concern would be the loss of all lighting if the RCD trips. C3 at most.

Poor workmanship does not really cover tidy wiring of CUs, it is more proper support of cables and equipment, no exposed primary insulation etc.

Difficult to see how you could code poor workmanship! Any other defect, for example exposed primary insulation, would be covered specifically, in this case 526.8.

What is non compliant with an arrangement of two lighting circuits on one DP rcd and two socket circuits on another DP RCD?

This is a simple 4 way consumer unit.

So a fault causes inconvenience does it? You balance the inconvenience to the benefit of fault protection. Usually, then the fault is dealt with.

I am familiar with the common practice of mix and match lights and sockets across two RCDs. The dual RCD board is mass produced as an economical means to an end to accommodate whole RCD protection from the 17th onwards. The mix and match arrangement was in some literature, simply a diagram, produced by one of the consumer unit manufacturer's, Crabtree possibly, I cannot recall, but it seems to have been adopted as some kind of rule, which it is not.

You can install how you like, both ways are "compliant" , but one, when you consider what you are trying to achieve is less "compliant" than the other, if your concern is danger, pretty much the same, but to a far lesser degree, if it is also "inconvenience".

I would go with the risk of danger, primarily, rather than inconvenience, in the event of a fault, as a starting point. Historically, one of the "danger" aspects put forward by the Clubs was darkness and falling down stairs due to all circuits being one one RCD. Some alleviated that by having an emergency light fitting in some position or another. That was a choice. In some instances it was probably a good idea, in other cases it was not relevant. But it is horses for course's.

All those of you out there doing electrical maintainance for reward for ten or 20 years or more will know what type of circuit, 99.99% of the time, is going to operate an RCD in a manner that people will refer to as "inconvenient". It is a socket circuit with things and appliances on. With lighting circuits, you really are limited to furry friend nibbling of cables, water leaks into a class 2 light fitting or DIY drilling into walls and hitting the switch wires. It is not going to happen very often , if ever. But, if it did happen the 0.01% of the time, it is fixed quick, because you do not simply "fix it" by turning off the faulty appliance or un plugging the faulty equipment from the 13 amp socket.

So, if in your logic, you want to limit the danger of some lighting in a house going off because an RCD operates, then do not put it on the same RCD as a socket circuit.

I think that the builder is showing reasoned risk appreciation with this simple and effective layout of circuits. ?. The construction may be pants, by someones opinion, but the danger aspect has been dealt with.

Think back to split consumer units on a TN. One main switch, some lighting circuits on the non RCD protected side and all sockets and cooker on the solitary DP 30mA RCD side. These lighting circuits were independent of the socket circuits or cooker circuits having an earth fault and operating the RCD. The builders configuration is a progression, in common parlance, from 16th Edition Boards to 17th Edition Boards.


I know what I have said above will set off much gnashing of teeth. But you do not have to go with the crowd. An electrician can be their own person. You do not have to accept all that is told to you as fact and that this such and such defined way is the only way that is "allowed". Even the most simple job is "designed" as you go as you decide as a best fit to BS7671, but be careful when using terms such as danger and inconvenience to substantiate a particular way of doing things that does, when put to statistical test, significantly increases the risk of danger. There is not a one size fits all "design" and please do not say that it is now a "rule" every circuit has to have its own independent RCBO.


To throw into the mix.

I will quite happily put out there that I have installed many tens of consumer units in that configuration. They even have building reg notification. WOW! At a guess, over the last 12 years or so , at least 4 or 5 of these have been shown at an annual assessment and not even a raised eyebrow. WOW WOW!!!!!


Do not believe all the Badgers Tails that are going about.

Dave hits the nail on the head. You can't fail it on an EICR when its not broken any regs, specifically ones as vague as in the regs book. Is it safe? Yes

Lack of previous documentation is not generally considered a "failure" in an EICR. Ok the condition is "no previous paperwork" but that is not in any regulation! It must be provided as an EIC or MWC at installation time, but it not being present to the inspector is just inconvenient. The starting position is basically knowing nothing, and if documentation is provided it is often incorrect, so wasting time. One could claim that no previous documents present means that there may never have been any, but perhaps that is why the EICR is being carried out. Lack of documentation of a domestic is not covered by the EAWR and not by the BR, reference being made to BS7671 not statute.


In the case of these untidy wires in the CU, I would be more concerned if they had been extended, particularly if by red or blue butt crimps, as these are a common source of failure. Even with the correct crimp tool neither size is very satisfactory when subjected to a pull test with solid wires, although both pass with flexible conductors just fine (failure at a point away from the crimp being the criterion). Commercial installations rarely have what might be considered "tidy" wiring, because the separate wires must be left loose to prevent bunching temperature rise, and there can be a lot of them.