EICR - C2 OR C3

Hi everyone,
Looking for honest opinions on C2 ratings on a recent EICR. Terrace house probably built 1930's, rented out. Not sure if this is a standard EICR template but text and C2 ratings for the following:
1. Consumer unit - manual operation of circuit breakers and RCD's to prove disconnection (643.10)
2. Presence of RCD six-monthly test noticeat or near consumer unit (514.12.2)
3. RCD(s) provided for fault protection - includes RCBOs (411.4.204, 411.5.2, 531.2)
4. RCD(s) provided for additional protection/requirements - includes RCBOs (411.3.3, 415.1)
5. Provision of additional requirements for protection by RCD not exceeding 30 mA
- for all socket outlets of rating 32A or less unless an exception is permitted (411.3.3)
- final circuits supplying luminaires within domestic (household) premises (411.3.4)
Overall comments are:
No visible earthing on living room lighting circuit (C2/FI)
Property currently has x 2 consumer units with no RCD protection (C2).

I've been reading around the subject and on this forum and these things seem to be open to interpretation. If the work needs done, I have no problem with that, just don't want to be ripped off for work that's not actually required!
Would be grateful for comments.

Thanks

Hi Ann,

I think if you can post a copy of the EICR (All names and personal details removed) we might be in a better position to comment.

Item 2 is never a C2 though!

It is clear that RCD is an issue regards C2 or C3. Best practice Guide number four found on electricalsafety.org will say it is a C3, whereas codebreakers published by NAPIT call it a C2. Personally I usually put it as a C3 with certain caveats. i.e. if the installation is poorly executed and the residents not very aware of the potential dangers with electricity then it may be a C2. NAPIT say C3 because they feel tenants are an unknown and mixed lot and there is no telling how they may modify or change the layout of a place. Whether it is students having wild parties and trashing the house or a staid older working couple can be very different scenarios. As to no cpc on the lighting that again is easily C3 with a warning notice on the consumer unit not to put metal fitting or switches on the lighting circuits. It is not ideal but certainly can comply without the work needed dependant on the circumstances. I feel you should have been better informed as to the observations and it is a fine line in a stricter interpretation and breaching trading standards in recommending work that does not strictly need doing.

RCDs for faultprotection would be a N/A as long as EFLI readings were within limits for ADS.

telectrix said:

RCDs for faultprotection would be a N/A as long as EFLI readings were within limits for ADS.

Click to expand...

I had an interesting exchange of views with Napit yesterday about a similar topic. One for the Arms later…

telectrix said:

RCDs for faultprotection would be a N/A as long as EFLI readings were within limits for ADS.

Click to expand...

Annoys the hell out of me this one, it raises suspicions straight away that the report writer doesn't know the difference between RCDs for fault protection and additional protection!!!

In which case not only shouldn't be doing inspections, but shouldn't be let anywhere near this elastic-trickery stuff!

We could spend a while picking holes here as there are a few nonsensical things in it.
I particularly note that he's apparently managed to do an insulation resistance test to earth on a lighting circuit that doesn't have an earth. That makes me wonder if any IR testing at all actually happened to check the wiring is in good condition.

With caveat that I haven't seen it for myself, two summary's coming up - what Best Practise Guide 4 says, followed by my real opinion!

So trying to look at it purely from a safety point of view in line with Best Practise Guide 4 says without personal preferences coming into it....
It looks like it met the regs when installed, it says there is supplementary bonding in the bathroom so the shower is ok.
If there are any sockets that could be used to serve equipment outdoors then there is a safety issue.
The lighting circuit is a safety issue if you have any metal fittings or switches.
With these caveats and not having seen it, it might just about scrape a satisfactory report.

My actual opinion.....
The wiring is likely 50 years old old if there is a lighting circuit without an earth.
I'm not confident the most important test to assess it's condition (insulation resistance) was actually performed. This is a very important test for older wiring.
The consumer units are doing their job but are mainly designed to protect the wiring not people. There are countless benefits to more modern consumer units as they offer a lot more to protect people.
If it were my house I'd want a trustworthy sparks to test the insulation, change the consumer units, and at a minimum rewire the lighting circuit.
If I was renting it out I'd also want tenants to be able to turn a breaker on not have to fiddle with fuse wire, and to be better protected by a modern consumer unit.

I hope that helps a bit.

timhoward said:

I particularly note that he's apparently managed to do an insulation resistance test to earth on a lighting circuit that doesn't have an earth.

Click to expand...

Whilst I fully agree with everything else in your post, I feel it proper to point out that there doesn't have to be a CPC present in order to do an insulation resistance test. The test will still show up insulation faults where the cables run next to earthed metalwork etc. And of course any line to neutral insulation leakage.

loz2754 said:

Whilst I fully agree with everything else in your post, I feel it proper to point out that there doesn't have to be a CPC present in order to do an insulation resistance test. The test will still show up insulation faults where the cables run next to earthed metalwork etc. And of course any line to neutral insulation leakage.

Click to expand...

good point.

telectrix said:

good point.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn’t thinking quite straight! Interestingly there is a cpc size recorded for that circuit at the CU so maybe there’s a joint box to some older wiring.
Any rate I don’t like seeing rental properties without RCD protection, it isn’t a hugely expensive job to make it much safer, probably less than a months rental income in most cases.

Yet again we are picking over another poor quality EICR that clearly lacks in attention to detail, has the person doing the EICR take any time to read what they are putting a tick or a LIM against
Why does the schedule of test results have C2's in some of the columns
Looking at the overall quality of the report I doubt the person doing it has the necessary knowledge or skill to produce an EICR

Hi everyone,
Thanks for your valuable comments and advice so far. I thought I had posted a reply previously but dont see it so here goes again! The conclusion I’ve drawn from all of your replies is that it could do with a second opinion! The previous inspection was arranged by a letting agent. I dont live in the area so any suggestions on how I go about getting in touch with a good, honest electrician in the Darlington area who could carry out a new inspection please?