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 4881 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
    Sparkingchip:

    Is anyone coding a lack of surge protection on landlords EICRs?


    Andy B.


    A good point.

    Indeed, where on any of the Standard IET based forms would you record the satisfactory presence (or otherwise) of an SPD?

    I've only found a passing reference on 4.20 of EICR Inspection record "Confirmation of indication that SPD is functional (651.4)".

    GN3 isn't very helpful either.

    The 18th was finished in a hurry?


  • 0
    Sorry for dragging this up again, but time has passed and I thought I'd report back;


    Original contractor was engaged (he admitted the phantom R2 figure had been arrived at by calculation), on the basis that all reported problems would be fixed and full certification issued.


    Finally received the documentation today;

    "Certificate" was another EICR form, this time showing "Satisfactory".

    Under section 7 observations, were noted the remedial works carried out to reach this satisfactory status.

    One of those tasks was replacement of the consumer unit for one with RCD incomer.

    Now it used to be the case that CU replacement was Part P notifiable work, which would make an EIC necessary.

    We have no EIC for the CU, just the "satisfactory" EICR.

    When asked, the contractor's advice was, "A satisfactory report is enough, it is legally stating the electrical installation at the property is a pass and in a satisfactory nature so this can also be used as a certificate stating compliance."

    Is that the case now? I'd expected the new installation work would require a certificate.


    Looking forward as always to this group's experienced advice.


    TIA


    Alan


  • 0
    It looks like what you now have is a situation where you can legally rent out the flat, as you have a valid current EICR.  You meet the requirements of the new legislation.


    But what you don't know is if the work has been reported to your council Building Control, via the contractor's registration body.  That's only likely to come back and bite you if you ever sell the flat.  As the one paying for the work, you're responsible for ensuring that BC are notified, either by notifying it yourself, or employing a contractor who will do it for you.  But it's a bit of a problem if the notification wasn't agreed as part of the contract.
  • 0
    AlanKay:

    Original contractor was engaged (he admitted the phantom R2 figure had been arrived at by calculation), on the basis that all reported problems would be fixed and full certification issued.


    If you want to be pedantic an EICR is a report; an EIC is a certificate. If you agreed on full certification, that is what you should get.


    An EIC is appropriate for a change of CU - Note 1 for an EIC, Appendix 6.


    Frankly, I wouldn't split hairs over it. You have the written confirmation that remedial work has been undertaken.


    As Simon Barker has pointed out, notification is a separate matter.


  • 0
    AlanKay:

    One of those tasks was replacement of the consumer unit for one with RCD incomer.


    I hope that's not literally true as whole-house RCDs aren't compliant, and haven't been for several editions/revisions of the Regs.

    The Regs require the issue of an EIC or a Minor Works Cert for all work. Building Regs require notification or self-certification of a CU change.


    Why are some electricians so thick about the basics? I was doing better that this when I was fourteen.


  • 0
    Is the electrician registered with a Competent Person scheme? 


    Has the electrician notified the LABC of the consumer unit replacement?


    Can the electrician actually notify the consumer unit replacement to the LABC on your behalf?
  • 0
    At least in some local authority areas anyone can see which properties have had building notices submitted.

    Each blue triangle on this map represents a building control submission in Andover in the last year, some are gas, but most are electrical and in the real map (link here) with the right options set (by zooming and using that funny 'funnel' icon), hovering the mouse over any one brings up the address and the type of notification.

    I understand a number of local areas do something similar, you may be able to for yours

    002dcd5894b74a3e635fd7c7df8b7c76-original-andover_bco_2019-2020.png

  • 0
    My mistake re RCD description. I haven't been to inspect the installation myself (yet).

    Electrician described this rectification item as "Old consumer unit with no rcd protection - Upgrade to 6 way consumer unit dual rcd".

    So, ideally a split board with lighting and power on separate RCDs.


    Section 16 - schedule, suggests for each RCD; "number of points served = 3".

    I DO need to visit and check though; from the way section 16 is completed it appears the second RCD serves 3 spare ways, whilst the other serves cooker, ring, and lights.


    Thanks so much for advice already received. I'll keep you posted.


    Alan


  • 0
    AlanKay:

    Section 16 - schedule, suggests for each RCD; "number of points served = 3".

    I DO need to visit and check though; from the way section 16 is completed it appears the second RCD serves 3 spare ways, whilst the other serves cooker, ring, and lights.


    "number of points served" does not appear in the model forms of Appendix 6.


    If there are only 3 circuits, there is hardly any need for a split board.


  • 0
    ?

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