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 4896 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
    UKPN:

    I agree with many of these posts, but above all the 18th ed clearly says previous eds are not necessarily unsafe.


    That's all well and good. The problem is that the new landlord regs say nothing about requiring the electrical installation to be safe; instead it requires the installation to comply with BS7671:2018 at all times while it is let out.


  • 0
    Not do many years ago a customer asked me to have a look at his mother in laws house on the Bristol Road in Birmingham, because she had students as lodgers and the local college insisted that they needed an EICR for her house as they handled the tenancies on her behalf.


    I did not charge her for telling her it needed to be rewired, I called in on the way home from her daughter and son-in-laws home and as I went into her house I saw a beautiful rosewood fuse board with double pole fusing in porcelain cups, I eased a light switch of the wall and could not determine what the cable insulation was, but it had fell off where it had been manipulated.


    I think the house was wired in the 1900’s when the tramway was electrified and power cables run along the Bristol Road and apart from changing fittings the lighting circuit was virtually as installed.


    Just how far do you feel you need to go before it’s reasonable to condemn an installation? I see beautiful houses that have had lots of money improving and  extending them, but hidden below the surface are fifty year old electric cables that lack the RCD protection that would be required for brand new cables.


    As an owner occupier you can to a certain extend be the decision maker regards upgrading your own electrical installation, but suddenly landlords are being forced to consider the repairs, improvements and upgrades they have avoided doing for many years. Ultimately it will be the landlords who decide if they act on the EICR observations, if they don’t they can let a friend or family member move into the property and live there free of charge, sell the property or even move into it themselves.


    What they cannot do is ignore the EICR and pretend they didn’t see it or they have not assessed the risks from not carrying out the recommended work and     upgrades, even if the observations are coded 3.


     Andy B.
  • 0
    UKPN:

    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


    I agree with UKPN. I am not rushing to "upgrade" my 1982 installation, but I shall do so when time allows. It won't make me feel any safer.


  • 0
    I still have two bedroom plastic  pendant sets and light switches without a CPC, the metal switch back boxes have nylon lugs. The lighting was wired in insulated singles, so I pulled in a new live with CPC to most fittings, but didn’t quite finish the job. As the bedrooms are below the loft the lights aren’t hard to do, it’s just time. But the circuits are RCD protected.


    What you have to remember is there is a hell of a difference between an old installation that was installed to a good standard and has been hardly touched, as opposed to the multitude of installations that have been hacked about over the years.


    Occasionally I see an old installation and all it needs is a straightforward consumer unit replacement to update it by more than twenty years as everything else is spot on, but these installations are rare.


    Andy B.
  • 0
    Is anyone coding a lack of surge protection on landlords EICRs?


    Andy B.
  • 0
    SPD? They wouldn't need to if pre 18th ed.

    Regards, UKPN
  • 0
    SPD? They wouldn't need to if pre 18th ed.

    Periodics are done by comparison with the current edition of the wiring regulations - so it is a valid question. I doubt it would rate above a C3 though even if the risk assessment showed an SPD would currently be required - unless in a rare case surges would be thought likely to damage safety critical (e.g. life support) equipment.

       - Andy.
  • 0
    UKPN:

    SPD? They wouldn't need to if pre 18th ed.

    Regards, UKPN




    The requirement for domestic lighting circuits to have RCD  protection only came in in the 2018 edition of the Wiring Regulations, but you cannot choose not to consider it when undertaking the preparation of an EICR.


    Andy B


  • 0
    We can debate whether the absence of RCD protection merits a C2 or C3, but let's turn the situation on its head.


    The real question is: "Is this installation in a satisfactory condition for continued service?" (651.1)


    We know that lack of compliance with the current edition does not necessarily mean that an installation is unsafe for continued use (Introduction to BS 7671:2018, page 4).


    If an installation is in a satisfactory condition, there can be no C1, C2, or FI code. It follows that the highest code that may be given for the absence of RCD protection in a safe, but outdated installation is C3.
  • 0
    Chris Pearson:


    The real question is: "Is this installation in a satisfactory condition for continued service?" (651.1)


    We know that lack of compliance with the current edition does not necessarily mean that an installation is unsafe for continued use (Introduction to BS 7671:2018, page 4).


     


    Bearing in mind that the report is not being prepared for an owner occupier, but for a landlord who has a legal requirement to comply with the new legislation that specifically states a requirement for compliance with BS7671:2018 to ensure the safety of tenants, visitors and contractors who may live, visit or work within the property.


    The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) makes interesting reading, presumably no one undertaking a visual only assessment of an electrical installation without testing can be expected to spot everything.


    23 ELECTRICAL HAZARDS Include hazards from shock and burns resulting from exposure to electricity but not risks associated with fire caused by deficiencies to the electrical installations, e.g. ignition caused by a short circuit.


    This EICR is only part of the process, landlords should be arranging for or carrying out interim visual inspections between the five yearly EICRs.


    Andy Betteridge.


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