Many thanks for your advice. I am afraid you may be right. The inspector sounded very defensive every time I asked for basis of his assessment on the C2s.I was initially tempted to just use him if the cost is not exorbitant as he verbally assured me that he will give a clean report after I paid him for the fixes (and the I had absolutely no idea on all these things about zonal system etc) but because he kept not coming back on quotes and I got worried in the potential costs involved that I started reading up and that’s how I slowly discovered on how the basis of his C2 findings were based on his visual inspection(and initially I thought that was how engineers work as he kept implying by giving those C2 findings he is stricter than the other engineers like those for other flats in my development.

Hi David, thanks for your comment. In fact, I have notified my Management Office about the RCD finding and they are in the midst of talking to the in/house engineer as it seems quite onerous that all the settings of the bathroom in my development needs upgrading to be safe for occupation!

I will redact the pages and post here. Thanks 

Part 10. No. 8. RCD for low voltage circuits serving the location. "N/A" is not consistent with the C2 later on.

Thanks Kay76 very interesting. It has all the hallmarks of being entirely made up, because many items which should be N/A are ticked, the readings from measurements are not consistent ex. Circuit 5 (R1+R2 does not match alleged cable resistances) and appears to be an incorrect Zs value for the circuit, not matching the Ze value. I wonder at the Ze and actual supply arrangement too, where is your electricity meter? Do you pay the management company or the distributor directly?

Regards

David CEng etc.

Just a few observations from me;

page 2-Next inspection-1 month

this really winds me up. If all remedials are done, the report should give a reasonable time until next inspection. As it stands, another report is needed after the remedials are done

page 3

Agreed limitions- Agreed with no-one

Supply protective device is a switch

other sources of supply on page 7, which says N/A

prospective fault current 949kA is HUGE

rating/setting of device should be N/A as it is not settable

page 4

item 4.2 no mention elsewhere of loose CU

item 4.4 should be C3, plastic CU

item 4.15 should be N/A-plastic CU

item 4.16 should be N/A- not required for fault protection, not TT and Zs within limits all circuits

item 4.17 this is ticked but has given a C2 for no RCD in bathroom

page 5

item 5.11 e) shouldn't be N/A, should have a code

item 6.1 b) ticked, but bedroom light not working?

list of luminaires page 8, which says N/A so none inspected despite saying 20% in extent of sampling on page 3

item 7.7 all N/A-should include those in bathroom

item 8.1 a) says N/A, but has given C2 for this elsewhere

item 8.2 says N/A but lights are ELV

Note-his name hasn't been redacted at the bottom

page 6

live/live insulation resistance tests- should be N/A unless all loads disconnected. Lim on lighting circuit, "no access to spotlight connections" (page 3) , are all lights spotlights?

Pretty good OM, there are quite a lot more given enough time!

You can see I gave up near the end

I wonder if the eagle eyed have noticed something else? The incomer appears to be 3 core SWA (old colours) but where is the armour (see 5.16 on form)? This suggests that there is a central position with all the meters, and presumably the position of all the extraneous parts bonding (if any) and an easily accessed fuse whose rating is unlikely to be the 100A stated, providing protection of the submain which he says is 16mm2 (main Earth conductor, thus undersized! Now the hard question, would I expect this to be present within the flat too, as there is one 10mm2 in the CU Earth bar as far as I can see? How was this inspected because I would expect at least a note about it. The flat heating is also interesting, perhaps central, perhaps gas, or perhaps just a single heater or perhaps that is an immersion water heater? Then there are all the ticks on metering equipment and bonding all being present and the correct size, interesting. Yet he complains that the bathroom bonding cannot be verified!

This is definitely an inadequate EICR, with all the paperwork from a scheme. I wonder about the qualifications of the QS and the Inspector. It needs to be taken much further.

Strangely the reading of 0.14 of an ohm in the photo of the "machine that goes ping" to impress the natives does not actually appear anywhere in the results.
It could be ring round on red end to end circuit 5  test r1  later mistyped as 0.16  I suppose. That's implying a total wiring length of about 20-25m of 2.5mm core. That seems a bit short then but I suppose it maybe.a small installation. Once you start to wonder you see things, like that 949 kilo amps instead of amps it leaves you wondering how much thought went into this.

Mike.