Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 54 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 4934 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Anomaly in EICR

AlanKay
Situation; I have owned and let for about 17 years a small (1 bed) flat in large converted house. Conversion was done in 1987, six years or so before I bought. The property is in England.


A Managing Agent looks after tenant's requests and has a raft of contractors on their books for everything from plumbing and electrics to carpet-fitting, decoration and gardening. MA calls us for approval before engaging their contractor on any job. They arrange regular GasSafe inspections and certificates and at our request carried out an asbestos survey (none found!).


They have just written to advise that in line with new regulation they sent their electrician to carry out an EICR on the flat. Copies of the completed EICR and a quote for remedying defects arrived with their inspection advice.


I don't know why, but I'm always a little wary of such combined "we found a dangerous fault, but don't worry we can fix it for you" quotes.


I'm quite possibly wrong here, so I'd appreciate experienced opinion.

I really am not trying to avoid works that are necessary, even if they would require my tenant to move out (in the event of a full rewire for example).

Cut to the chase.


In the quote, one of the discovered faults to be repaired is described as, "No end to end reading on ring circuit, locate fault and re-terminate".

That same message is repeated in section 7 (Observations and recommendations) of the EICR, "No end to end reading on R2 - Locate and terminate" - with a C2 classification.


Ok. An open-circuit of the cpc loop needs finding and fixing, but..


In section 16 (Schedule of circuits and test results) the values for r1, rn and r2 are written in as 0.55, 0.54 and 0.84.


Can someone explain how the 0.84 Ohms measurement was made with an open cpc loop?

(I think 0.84 Ohms is quite good for 1.5mm vs 2.5mm. With r1 and rn around 0.55 I'd have expected at least 0.9.)



Moving on from that, and now feeling unsure of the veracity of the inspector's report:-


Next old chestnut; "Old consumer unit with no RCD protection - replace". To my certain knowledge there has been no modification or addition to the flat's electrics since I bought it. Has "retrospective normalisation" now caught up with us? I do realise that there are different regulations for let properties... Another C2.


Lastly; "Excessive exposed copper within sockets, need re-terminating. Another C2.

Again, to my certain knowledge there has been no modification or addition to the flat's electrics since I bought it.



To add to the pressure, EICR sect. 6 recommends next inspection in 2 weeks.



I doubt the electrician will want to engage with me if I question the report, far less re-quote with reduced scope.

Would it be best to ask the MA to arrange another, independent, EICR?

Please be assured, I do NOT suggest simply finding an electrician who will sign off an unsafe installation. If it is unsafe, or safe but doesn't meet regs, it must be rectified.


Sorry for the long post, but I've tried to include all relevant info.
  • 0
    "It's the same in any business - quality sells. "


    Oh if only that were true.

    There is large portion of our audiance out there whose only aim give you price sells.


    That`s why I do not price for letting agents and many landlords.

    No I do not quote for fault finding either.

     

    I pick my customers and they pick me.


    A chap once asked me something like "Hello I`m a landlord and I have a tennant moving in next week, I need a consumer change before he moves in and I know that consumer units cost £50 at B & Q and they take 45 mins to fit cos I`ve seen it done".


    Actually I very patiently and courtesly talked him thru it and said I could not do it within 4 weeks anyway. I was not "abrupt" at all mostly because he was given my contact details by one of my valued (landlord) customers.
  • 0
    I suggest it’s a good idea to employ some who is busy and says they cannot come they same or next day.
  • 0
    A hour and fifteen minutes to find and fix the neutral fault,  a neutral in a back box caught with the face plate fixing screw. The tenth fitting that was dismantled. 


  • 0
    ebee:

    "It's the same in any business - quality sells. "


    ...

     

    I pick my customers and they pick me.


    Which proves my point! ?


  • 0
    The real issue is that many people are picking codes out of thin air without any real way of backing up what they chose. So when challenged probably cannot come up with a rationale explanation. 


    The issue of the inconsistency in ring continuity is not a matter for general discussion, only the person who compiled the report can explain it.


    Regards RCD protection there are many reasons for installing RCD protection, which issues have been raised as C2’s and would you as the landlord write a risk assessment that says it’s okay not to upgrade the installation by adding RCD protection to all circuits?


    Andy B.
  • 0
    A risk assessment, re RCD for sockets, is for new installation work.

    Again , this is EICR, not initial verification.
  • 0
    Alcomax:

    A risk assessment, re RCD for sockets, is for new installation work.

    Again , this is EICR, not initial verification.


    I might add that there just has to be a documented risk assessment (my emphasis): the soundness of the risk assessment does not have to be checked.


  • 0
    I agree with your concerns.
    • The flat on a separate post earlier has a cable, declared to be aluminium but is clearly tinned stranded copper, Company refused to budge and admit mistake but said that if it was, it needed changing as it was old.

    • Lights in bathroom "need upgrading to LED as they show signs of heat damage". They don't and are already LED.

    • No earth connected to ceiling roses, C2 when it should be C3.


    The problem is that these companies are dong a service to letting agents by coming round when asked but this is a bit much. Especially as the prices given seemed very high and did not include repairing ragging along a plaster wall.
  • 0
    Alcomax:

    A risk assessment, re RCD for sockets, is for new installation work.

    Again , this is EICR, not initial verification.




    A landlord has to assess everything that may be a risk from steps and staircases to the electrical installation.


    So the landlord or their agent instructs an electrician to prepare an EICR and this EICR has half a dozen observations regarding the lack of RCD protection, if the landlord doesn’t upgrade the installation they are assessing the risks and determining that the risks don’t justify having the work done. If the sole reason for not upgrading the installation is the cost they are leaving themselves wide open if there is an incident that results in death or injury that may not have been fatal or life changing had RCD protection been installed.


    Another thing to consider is that an EICR highlighting that the landlord has not upgraded the installation reduces the value of their investment property and may affect the level of the rent that can be charged, even though the installation has been classed as “Safe to use”, through not fault of the electrician.


     Andy B.


  • 0
    I agree with many of these posts, but above all the 18th ed clearly says previous eds are not necessarily unsafe. The house I live in is 1974. Cable sheath earth, 0.3, Bonding, supplementary bonding, new switches, sockets. Exis cooker control panel. RCD sw socket by back door for mower etc. Everything tests out. In my opinion the installation is perfectly safe. If I for some reason I had to have an EICR, and the guy said its unsafe by way of a "code" (C2)

    I would challenge him. It wouldnt be pleasant,  I would want a written explanation as to why.

    These nonsensical C2s for 1970/1980s fuseboards, shower without an RCD where the bathroom is bonded throughout. Ifs/mights/maybes/could doesnt cut it with me. "The fuse(MCB) board might catch fire". The fuse board is built to BS????, the board can cope with the PSCC, the terms are tight, the load is in spec, how is it going to catch fire? 


    Regards, UKPN

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines