EICR questions

Hi

I need some advice regarding EICR. I have attached the report and some images. It looks like it's mainly C2 with fuseboxes not having any RCD/RCBO protection and they're quoting about a 1000 pounds to change the fusebox!! It's a one bed flat on 7th floor in east london. I had a similar property with no RCD protection for some circuits but those are only C3 so I'm not sure if I am being misled here,

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks

RIP OFF.... looks like it's jusr the 6A lighting MCBs that have no RCD protection. this warrants a C3 code. therefore a satisfactory report. to be certain would need pic with busbar shield off to clarify MCBs 5,6,and 7. either way. a simple mod would fix.

As Tel has just said, a simple modification to make it into one busbar would solve that.

so now ize saved yous a grand. 10% is my usual commission rate, but as you are a Southerner, it's 50%. ???

Agree with above should be code 3 for no rcd in a flat except possibly the bathroom light which may need an rcbo fitting .looks like you need a couple of down lights and a new switch for the water heater. It's a good chance that you dont require the bonding under the kitchen sink. From the report it looks like only the first 2 circiits are rcd protected .

telectrix said:

so now ize saved yous a grand. 10% is my usual commission rate, but as you are a Southerner, it's 50%. ???

Click to expand...

Taking into account the liverpool - london exchange rate, hes actually saved you £4.50?

Thanks for all the advice! I did have a a feeling that I have been ripped off. Now I just have to argue with the electricians on putting it right. Or do you think I should just go for another electrician?

??? yes I'll happily pay for an honest service.

telectrix said:

RIP OFF.... looks like it's jusr the 6A lighting MCBs that have no RCD protection. this warrants a C3 code. therefore a satisfactory report. to be certain would need pic with busbar shield off to clarify MCBs 5,6,and 7. either way. a simple mod would fix.

Click to expand...

Neutrals show that 5,6,an 7 aren't RCD protected, but easily sorted with a little busbar manipulation, as you say. Lighting circuit that includes the bathroom could also be included if RCBOs aren't available.
Cable damage to downlights looks like it might be repairable with a bit of HR sleeving, and LED replacements for halogens (if not already done) should stop repeat damage.

As already covered, there is certainly no need for a new consumer unit to get a satisfactory EICR (though even that would be steep at £1000 imo, unless you are nearer Central London than Kent...)

Moeller merged with Eaton, so I'd guess (though would need verifying) that the current Eaton/Memera RCBOs might be compatible and they are £29.99 at Screwfix (probably cheaper from the right wholesaler)

I suspect they are Napit members, or users of Codebreakers, since they've C2'd all circuits less than 50mm, whereas most people consider that a C3.

One of their C2s (5.11.1) seems to be related to socket outlets, even though they are on the RCD? I guess perhaps the Kitchen Appliances ring has some sockets on, but as it's unlikely (?) that the are going to use an extension lead for outdoor appliances, then that would normally be a C3 imo.

The only C2 I see from there (aside from the heat damage and cracked spur maybe) is the bathroom lighting, but since it's a fairly new build flat, it's also quite possible that Supplementary Bonding is in place, so even that C2 might not be reasonable.

There would obviously be benefits to an all RCBO Type A board (nuisance trips, DC appliances etc), but a good electrician should explain them and give the various options to a client imo.

brianmoooore said:

Neutrals show that 5,6,an 7 aren't RCD protected, but easily sorted with a little busbar manipulation, as you say. Lighting circuit that includes the bathroom could also be included if RCBOs aren't available.
Cable damage to downlights looks like it might be repairable with a bit of HR sleeving, and LED replacements for halogens (if not already done) should stop repeat damage.

Click to expand...

my bad. never thought of looking at the neutrals.

All socket-outlets with a rated current not exceeding 32A is a C2. We base this on the EICR Codebreakers book issued by NAPIT. This is only a guide, but due to the mis-interpretations of the severity, we refer to this.

The CoP is open to interpretation and therefore we use years of experience, regulations and NAPIT Codebreakers EICR Guide to base our final decision

There are only two circuits protected by RCD and 6 circuits that are not protected by RCD. One BUSBAR would not solve this as it would not be in accordance with BS7671:2018 Reg 531.3.2

We were unable to verify supplementary bonding to the bathroom extraneous conductive parts. Additional protection by means of RCD/RCBO is required


These are their reply. Looks like they’re just following a guide without actually explaining why they C2 most of it! Looks like I’ll just get another electrician to do a EICR.

ya78727 said:

All socket-outlets with a rated current not exceeding 32A is a C2. We base this on the EICR Codebreakers book issued by NAPIT. This is only a guide, but due to the mis-interpretations of the severity, we refer to this.

The CoP is open to interpretation and therefore we use years of experience, regulations and NAPIT Codebreakers EICR Guide to base our final decision

There are only two circuits protected by RCD and 6 circuits that are not protected by RCD. One BUSBAR would not solve this as it would not be in accordance with BS7671:2018 Reg 531.3.2

We were unable to verify supplementary bonding to the bathroom extraneous conductive parts. Additional protection by means of RCD/RCBO is required


These are their reply. Looks like they’re just following a guide without actually explaining why they C2 most of it! Looks like I’ll just get another electrician to do a EICR.

Click to expand...

Codebreakers is notably more 'strict' than other guides.

But the inspection and coding of an EICR is left to the discretion of the inspector involved, and there is a range of opinions out there, which has caused problems with some landlords having 'inconsistent' reports compared to others.

This report is not on the same level as some we've seen which are just incorrect or poorly done - just the the inspector has a stricter view of how to interpret which safety standards rental properties need to meet.

They are correct that just putting all circuits on one busbar to protect them by the one existing RCD would not meet the reg they state, although there are plenty of properties that were once installed that way.

RCBOs on individual circuits necessary would be the answer IMO, and even if you had them on every circuit you should be able to get that done for a lot less than the original quotation.

The testing on this EICR appears to have been done correctly and thoroughly and it's the interpretation of regulations that is the issue so one option would be to get quotes for doing the remedial work - the certificate produced for that, along with this certificate, shows you have completed your legal responsibilities.

There is no requirement to then get another EICR that says 'satisfactory', although some letting agencies need that explaining to them. You may be able to get the new electricians to complete one too for an additional cost if you wish,

Because of the "less than 50mm" and "walls with metal parts" C2s though, you'd likely have to RCBO every Non RCD protected circuit to meet the necessary remedial works on this certificate....

I don't have a Codebreakers book but someone may have and can look up whether that is exactly what it says, but I believe it does suggest those those cases as C2

The Best Practice Guide used by many states C3 for that, and C2 only for sockets that are liable to be used for portable appliances outside.

So under the Best Practise Guide 4 interpretation of your situation, only circuit 2 would need RCBO protection, and then only if supplementary bonding wasn't in place...

Having said that, RCD protection is definitely a significant benefit - there are advantages to having it on every circuit in terms of additional safety for persons and for reducing the risk of fire.

The light fittings sounds fairly easy to deal with, and the cracked fused spur mentions should also be easily dealt with.

On a final unrelated note, I don't know what software these people have used, but I hate the layout, with continuation sheets and 2 page results sheet. That's not a reflection on them, just whatever software they are using to produce the forms...

Down to basics, the EICR is designed to inform owners of the condition of the installation and give guidance as to which if any items should be tattled first, it was never designed as an MOT for homes, it was more like the more general home buyers report, and it did not matter one little bit if Code C1, C2, C3 or any other code, you were not forced to follow any recommendations, it was simply a guide.

The government has decided to use the existing system to try and improve the state of the electrics in rented accommodation on the cheap, but although a code C1 has very little argument when issued, i.e. it is dangerous, the code 4 does not comply with current edition if a new build was removed, so we have the 'potentially dangerous' label, and 230 volt is by its nature potentially dangerous, so we have a label which means very little.

There have been 18 editions of wiring regulations, each one since 1882 has tried to improve electrical safety, back in the early days we had switches where the live parts were exposed, the knife switch, and even before 1966 we had lights with no earth wires, but every version of the regulations has had a date after which and new design should follow the new rules, and the IET who publish the regulations with BSi have stated.

BS 7671:2018MODEL FORMS said:

An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded.

Click to expand...

So damage and deterioration easy enough, but "non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger." is rather vague, but in the main we are looking at changes in the way electricity is used, so back in 1882 we did not have solar panels, or electric powered cars in any quantity, Nikola Tesla died 1943 and it is claimed he made an electric car, and Bedford produced a van in the 70's, but the big change is the way power is put into the vehicle, and the possibility of a back feed and DC, the same with solar panels, the worry is DC getting into the supply, which can render the normal type AC RCD useless.

I talk about this as an example of how some thing in 1992 when BS7671 came out may have been OK then but is not OK now. We have had a load of laws either HSE or CENELEC Harmonization which are retrospective, so there are some things we could do in 1882 which are now permitted now, and these laws and international rules have been included in BS7671, but in the main installations designed after we moved from rubber to plastic cables are as good today as the day they were installed, and there is no requirement to upgrade.

However not upgrading ties one's hands when wanting extra sockets or new type of lights, however nice metal lights switches may look, swapping from plastic to metal is a change in design, so new rules apply, even swapping from a bulb which because of the temperature clearly no one would handle while powered to one which runs cool so can be handled live is a change in design.

But I would say with an EICR we are not in general looking are temporary items plugged in, we are only looking at the “consumer’s installation” which is defined in law as, the electric lines situated upon the consumer’s side of the supply terminals together with any equipment permanently connected or intended to be permanently connected thereto on that side; this comes from The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002. Note the "or intended to be permanently connected" so items like the central heating boiler is included even if on a plug and socket.

Although the regulations are not retrospective we can't really still use the 1882 version, at some point we need to draw a line, and the argument is where to draw that line, and since BS7671 became BS7671 in 1992 that would seem to be a convenient point. But the argument is we are looking for 'potential danger' for code C2 not non compliance with any addition of the regulations, but following the regulations it is unlikely we will have any 'potential danger'.

So there is no law to say we must have RCD protection, in some cases to avoid 'potential danger' we need RCD protection, but often there are other methods we can use. And the inspector has to use his expertise to decide if there is 'potential danger' or not, and it is a personal option of the inspector, so if he feels that since you have solar panels you need a type B RCD and you only have type AC he can code it C2, also if he feels you don't need any RCD protection again he can decide to not code lack of RCD protection, it is entirely up to him.

He must be a “qualified person” which means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards; but nothing says exactly what that is, as it would depend on the premises, and until we left the EU we had to allow free moment of labour, so we could not make a law saying the inspector must hold a C&G2391.

In Wales even harder, as any law to be valid has to be in English and Welsh, and of course anything it refers to must also be in English and Welsh, and BS7671 is not published in Welsh, so any law linked to BS7671 is not valid in Wales unless case law has modified it.

Oh what has god wrought? Some times I think to be an electrician one needs a degree in English, as it is all down to interpretation, I remember as school being told in an exam read all questions first and then start to answer, and the exam paper said at end when you read this just sit with arms folded with a smug smile. And it seemed very good, but with a reference book we tend to jump to bit we are interested in, not read it cover to cover, so we are told it must comply with BS7671:2018 but we miss the bit which says this document is only valid for installations designed after date given, so when designed in 1992 we are following BS7671:2018 by following BS7671:1992 as each edition refers us back to previous until we reach the one in force when the installation was designed.

Try contacting Eaton on Monday.