This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EICR - does bathroom lighting outside zone 2 need to conform with IP rating and additional rcd protection?

Hi, I have received an EICR certificate with 2 C2s on bathroom lighting 1) Bathroom lighting does not conform to IP rating (note the lighting outside the zone based on published zoning guidance (low voltage spot light) but inspector insisted on ignoring the zoning guidance) 2) Bathroom lighting circuit is not connected to an RCD also supplementary bonding is not visible. 

Questions- 1) Are the C2s legitimate? As a layman, I find it difficult to understand why the inspector insisted on ignoring the bathroom zoning regulation (my ceiling is actually higher than most of the newer flat) . 2) Also how do I find out whether there is supplemental bonding in the bathroom lighting circuit (nothing is visible outside) - does it really warrant a C2 if I cannot prove that there is supplemental bonding (the lighting in my bathroom is low voltage (I don’t know what is the voltage but it is very dim) and is located outside zone) . 3) If the C2s are legitimate, how can I fix the issue with minimal cost? 

many thanks for your time in advance.

Parents
  • Hmm. Wiring regs are not generally mandatory. But for land lords to have an inspection  to them is.

    If the inspector is a member of a trade body (Niciec, Napit etc. you could suggest that you want a 2nd opinion from them.

    If he isn't (or anyway..) you could ask to see qualifications)

    But before going in guns ablaze, I'd suggest to give him a chance to ease out of this (avoid confrontation and/or give your adversary a golden bridge across which to retreat... ),  but ask what electrical test he did to verify the bonding missing and if not could he not just do that first ?- it should be ' needs investigation' not "potential danger" if he cannot find it, which is still not a pass but it is a bit sloppy.  You can look at the pipes under the sink etc and see if they are all plastic- if they are not metal then bonding makes no sense it is not needed.
    Are there RCDs covering other circuits - again a photo of the board would be good and maybe a photo of the lights and even the plumbing.

    If you are sure it is a 12V lighting system (the lamps will say) then really how did he miss that.?

    We have had disgruntled inspection reports posted on here with vary degrees of redaction to protect the innocent/ incompetant, and in some cases the efforts are quite poor.
    Sadly getting your money back is quite tricky - who paid him ?  you or the landlord services folk ?

    Mike

Reply
  • Hmm. Wiring regs are not generally mandatory. But for land lords to have an inspection  to them is.

    If the inspector is a member of a trade body (Niciec, Napit etc. you could suggest that you want a 2nd opinion from them.

    If he isn't (or anyway..) you could ask to see qualifications)

    But before going in guns ablaze, I'd suggest to give him a chance to ease out of this (avoid confrontation and/or give your adversary a golden bridge across which to retreat... ),  but ask what electrical test he did to verify the bonding missing and if not could he not just do that first ?- it should be ' needs investigation' not "potential danger" if he cannot find it, which is still not a pass but it is a bit sloppy.  You can look at the pipes under the sink etc and see if they are all plastic- if they are not metal then bonding makes no sense it is not needed.
    Are there RCDs covering other circuits - again a photo of the board would be good and maybe a photo of the lights and even the plumbing.

    If you are sure it is a 12V lighting system (the lamps will say) then really how did he miss that.?

    We have had disgruntled inspection reports posted on here with vary degrees of redaction to protect the innocent/ incompetant, and in some cases the efforts are quite poor.
    Sadly getting your money back is quite tricky - who paid him ?  you or the landlord services folk ?

    Mike

Children
  • I paid the landlord services and they paid the EICR inspector. Actually I have been in some discussions with the EICR inspector before they issued the report as they gave my tenant a heads up that there were some issues. However, the inspector was reluctant to provide support for their findings. They proceeded to issue the unsatisfactory report afterwards so I had no choice but to bring those up with the landlord certificate services who assigned them. After my last post, I received an email from the landlord services asking me to contact NICIE re the C2 observations - they said they would only get the engineers to change the result if NICIE said so. I'm actually in the midst of preparing the email to NICIE, but I really want to get to the bottom of this before I contact them.

    Re the light rating - the inspector told the landlord services folk it was 12v:) he admitted it could be a C3 but he would still classified as a C2 (I don't know why he insisted).

    Unfortunately I haven't been in UK for a few years, my recollection is that the pipes under sink may be chrome metal.  Meanwhile I will post same of the photos I had from the inspectors (he forwarded me a bunch of photos but didn't tell me what they are for and specific photos I asked they just ignored) . Thanks

  • Never mind the lighting - it appears that a blanking piece is missing.

  • At least there is plenty of room for another RCD to be added ;-)

    Or better to change that 6A breaker for an RCBO looks like that range is still made, if not the cheapest

    Of course next time someone will winge the box is plastic and has no surge protection.
    Mike

  • Not sure what this mean? 

  • It appears that a blanking piece in the lid of the CU is missing. There might be a 9 mm gap at either end, but that is really an 18 mm gap 'cos the pieces could easily be slid to one side. Assuming that a British Standard finger could reach the busbar (not visible in the photos), that's a C1.

  • Or just move the circuit to the RCD-protected half.

  • How do I address this? Thanks