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
    I do need to visit. Need to arrange with tenant via MA.


    Re Chris's comment above, here's a snapshot of part of Section 16.

    0531b34b6e68d1b7df41a39b0c1af778-original-schedule-16.jpg
  • 0
    Not really a split load board is it, more of 3 circuits on one RCD.  Three RCBOs and a main switch might have been easier to understand.

    Still not an incorrect thing to record, and I can see that is  makes changes like points added or removed since last inspection easy to spot, so probably quite useful. (and obliges inspector to actually go into each room...)
  • 0
    Why on Earth did they fit a dual RCD board, and then put all the circuits on one RCD?  If that RCD trips, the whole flat goes dark, and the tenant is left stumbling around looking for a torch.  Putting the lights and sockets on separate RCDs is much more sensible.
  • 0
    You have ended up with an idiot electrician.


    It is probably your own fault for not taking the opportunity to engage an electrician and upgrading the electrical installation during the last few years when the flat was empty between tenancies as void maintenance, rather than leaving yourself in the situation of being railroaded into getting work done by the letting agents contractor to comply with legislation.


    The consumer unit layout can be left as it is, but it’s definitely the work of a fool having two RCDs but only using one of them.


    Personally, like Mike, I would have gone for three RCBOs.
  • 0
    AlanKay:

    Re Chris's comment above, here's a snapshot of part of Section 16.


    Thank you. Old software based upon obsolete model forms - before my time!


    I do realize that they are model forms and you can add whatever you like to them, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.


    God knows why the circuits haven't been split across the RCDs, but the board might well have been cheaper than an RCBO one.


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi I rent a bungalow and have a contractor appointed by my M A  classing my 30 year old installation with a split board with a C3 for not having any SPD, I understand why. They have to test against the 18th Edition. And C2s for having no RCD protection on 3 lighting circuits, even though the place is bristling with main and supplementary bonding. I’ve tasked the contractor to come back and test properly to confirm the earthing is fit for purpose, having quoted £400 plus vat to rectify C 2s and C 3. Daylight robbery in my view. Am I wrong..
  • 0
    Bob H:

    Hi I rent a bungalow and have a contractor appointed by my M A  classing my 30 year old installation with a split board with a C3 for not having any SPD, I understand why. They have to test against the 18th Edition. And C2s for having no RCD protection on 3 lighting circuits, even though the place is bristling with main and supplementary bonding. I’ve tasked the contractor to come back and test properly to confirm the earthing is fit for purpose, having quoted £400 plus vat to rectify C 2s and C 3. Daylight robbery in my view. Am I wrong..


    Yes the government tax does increase the bill somewhat.


    Z.


  • 0
    Bob H:

    Hi I rent a bungalow and have a contractor appointed by my M A  classing my 30 year old installation with a split board with a C3 for not having any SPD, I understand why. They have to test against the 18th Edition. And C2s for having no RCD protection on 3 lighting circuits, even though the place is bristling with main and supplementary bonding. I’ve tasked the contractor to come back and test properly to confirm the earthing is fit for purpose, having quoted £400 plus vat to rectify C 2s and C 3. Daylight robbery in my view. Am I wrong..


    Bob H, welcome to the forum and no, you have every justification for being concerned.


    C3s do not have to be rectified.


    Until the 18th Edn, lighting circuits did not have to have RCD protection. That's a C3, not a C2, assuming that they have a circuit protective conductor. (That's an earth to lay folk - they didn't always have one, but they would have done 30 years ago.)


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Thanks for your reply.  It has assisted my own conclusion in being correct, having re-qualified on the 17th at the age of 60, but have since retired from active installation work, not up to date on the 18th Edition. I am concerned that many small Landlords like myself will be falling into the same trap without the knowledge that I am lucky to have received.


    Regards.


    Bob H.
  • 0
    VAlanKay:

    I do need to visit. Need to arrange with tenant via MA.


    Re Chris's comment above, here's a snapshot of part of Section 16.

    0531b34b6e68d1b7df41a39b0c1af778-original-schedule-16.jpg




    I had forgotten about this, that truly is the work of an idiot electrician.


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