Extent of Electrical Installation Covered by this Report.

Zoomup: 
A potential customer has just handed me a copy of an E.I.C.R. The reason given for the  extent of the report is:

“Consumer Unit Only.”

The report seems to be genuine regarding the information provided. The reason for it is that the house is let to a tenant. A basic Test Schedule is included.

What's wrong with that, and why no responses over 3 hours? Were you all watching the footie? ?

I am not quite sure why you would want a schedule of test results other than to list the circuits and their OCPDs.

This I&T would only lead to a recommendation for a CU change if the CU itself were defective. Being pre-17th Edn in my view may be non-compliant, but not defective so that's only a C3. Whether circuits were < 50 mm deep and not RCD protected, for example, wouldn't be part of this I&T. 

It's not really an I&T of the installation, but full marks to the landlord for creativity.

That is not an EICR, it covers the whole installation (as far as possible), not one CU or perhaps one socket. In my view, this is invalid to allow rental.

That is not an EICR, it covers the whole installation (as far as possible), not one CU or perhaps one socket. In my view, this is invalid to allow rental.

I see nothing wrong with an EICR covering just part of a larger installation in principle - in just the same way that an EIC often covers just part of a larger installation (i.e. just the new work/alterations/additions done). In some situations it might be quite sensible to break the installation down into smaller portions - e.g. where shutting down the entire site at the same time would be unacceptably disruptive (factory, hospital, care home).

I'd agree that an EICR for a CU alone would be useless for showing that a private rented home meets electrical safety requirements - but in combination with other paperwork that covered the remainder of the installation, it could still be useful.

An EICR for a CU seems a little odd, but might be sensible in some circumstances - I suspect an previous EICR found problems with the old CU and it's been replaced. Normally a EIC for the CU change would be expected, but if one hadn't been produced for any reason or had been lost, then an EICR for just the ‘missing piece’ might be a reasonable regularization approach.

   - Andy.

The E.I.C.R. covers just a two up, two down Victorian terraced property in Norwich let to a single gentleman. The inexperienced worried owner is a nervous lady who just wants to do what is right. She employed a letting agent to get the E.I.C.R. undertaken, but the sparks that undertook the I&T is not available to do a consumer unit change. The consumer unit has a 100mA R.C.D. and B.S. 3871 O.P.D.s. I haven't seen it yet.

The main bonding is in 6.0mm2 cable. It may be very difficult to upgrade easily.

The report limits its extent to at least 20 per cent of each circuit as a limitation.

The report shows an Unsatisfactory condition. The form is headed Stroma Installer Certification, E.I.C.R. The inspector is the director of a limited company. The bottom of he cert. says created by NAPIT online. Copyright 2021.

Z.

Zoomup: 
The E.I.C.R. covers just a two up, two down Victorian terraced property in Norwich let to a single gentleman. The inexperienced worried owner is a nervous lady who just wants to do what is right. She employed a letting agent to get the E.I.C.R. undertaken, but the sparks that undertook the I&T is not available to do a consumer unit change. The consumer unit has a 100mA R.C.D. and B.S. 3871 O.P.D.s. I haven't seen it yet.

The main bonding is in 6.0mm2 cable. It may be very difficult to upgrade easily.

The report limits its extent to at least 20 per cent of each circuit as a limitation.

The report shows an Unsatisfactory condition. The form is headed Stroma Installer Certification, E.I.C.R. The inspector is the director of a limited company. The bottom of he cert. says created by NAPIT online. Copyright 2021.

Sounds like another one for DZ's little black book. So the extent is, in fact, more than the (ancient) CU. Sampling 20% of each circuit may be appropriate elsewhere, but not in this case.

Opinions probably differ, but in my view a CU should not be changed without first having ensured that the rest of the installation is fit for continued use.

The clue is the I in EICR, Electrical Installation Condition Report.

The same I that's in EIC?

No Andy, I think you are being misled. An EIC for a new circuit is obviously fine, but when you study for 2391 you will understand that the whole installation is always included. Your job is to decide if A PROPERTY is safe or not, not some part of it, which is useless to man or beast. Ok bed 1 is safe, but I have no idea about the rest, clearly does not match the rented property intent.

Does the schedule of tests actually include the results form looking at the circuits from the CU, or just the CU itself ?

One is an error of description - should read “ test of CU and wiring it supplies” the other is a description of a woefully inadequate process, where a great deal that should have been looked at for damage, and at least R2 wander tested to the ends, was not done.

This does not sound like paperwork that can be used to imply the place is all tickety-boo and meets the current standards to be rented out.

In any case, it needs clarifying and probably a re-inspection of the kind where ceiling roses or light switches and a few sockets get opened up to see what is behind them.

Mike,

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

No Andy, I think you are being misled. An EIC for a new circuit is obviously fine, but when you study for 2391 you will understand that the whole installation is always included. Your job is to decide if A PROPERTY is safe or not, not some part of it, which is useless to man or beast. Ok bed 1 is safe, but I have no idea about the rest, clearly does not match the rented property intent.

Then I'd wonder why JPEL/64 thought it necessary to include a ‘Extent of the electrical installation covered by this report’ section in the model EICR form?

   - Andy.