failed EICR, please can you advice

Julie. said:

But then again it uses the hot (reg) limits for max zs, and cold measured zs

Click to expand...

bigspark17 said:

Shocking codings imo.. looks like there just there writing a sales list more than an eicr.. get another company in to test, dont pay the other.

Click to expand...

timhoward said:

I completely agree the under kitchen sink waterproof stuff is rather baffling though!

Click to expand...

pc1966 said:

Though there seems to be a "100%" at the top of colum here which presumably allows the person to dial in 80% ?

Click to expand...

Intoelectrics said:

Yeah, the term "waterproof" is an unusual phrase to use. Also why would you need a higher IP rating for a socket inside a cupboard? Its not likely to get wet unless a pipe burst or the sink leaked really bad.

Click to expand...

nicebutdim said:

Just posted images from the PDF, but can't make them enlargeable.




Smoke detectors outside remit of this report, but they'll need to be replaced as it's a rental property.

Under sink sockets issue seems unusual as does the requirement of waterproof containment for their wiring. Are they wired in surface trunking from above worktop level? Regardless, this won't contribute significantly to cost of remedial work and there may be reasons for this that aren't immediately apparent from the report alone.

'Waterproof' is a poor choice of term but, depending on placement of bathroom and ensuite lights, it may well be that they don't meet required IP rating and need to be replaced. Again impossible to comment on, but not a major cost.

Fan isolation switch replacement may be a bit strict, but again can not comment without more information and no significant cost would be involved in their replacement

Single RCD only protecting circuits 8-14 and not meeting required disconnection times is a definite issue and new consumer unit is likely to be the best way of resolving this if the existing RCD is obsolete and also overcoming the lack of supplementary bonding in bathrooms. While this is likely to be the main cost of remedial work, I'd probably prefer to look at a slightly more expensive all RCBO replacement for a number of reasons.

Just one person's opinion, but it seems to be a fairly comprehensive report that has highlighted a couple of potentially very serious issues

Click to expand...

UNG said:

Also, why all the different IR thresholds, every IR / MFT tester has different over range limits that vary from >200 to >999 but when he has used the same tester for all of the tests how does he get >500, >999 and >1049

Click to expand...

ssn1122 said:

He has quoted £150 to remove and install 2 waterproof sockets under sink and £120nto install 2 LED waterproof lights .

Click to expand...

ssn1122 said:

Also will the IP rating be on the lights ? Where do I look for that ?

Click to expand...

timhoward said:

The Napit software offers you this:
View attachment 93688
It's tedious to use, every other value you have to add to the list using "Other" and some people don't bother.
As to what is wrong with a box to type the number into, I have no idea!

Click to expand...

timhoward said:

I'd nicely ask him exactly which regulation the current arrangements under the sink are violating. If you like, stick a picture up here of under the sink, then you can legitimately say you have sought a 2nd opinion.
If there's currently a leak or broken seal anywhere causing them to get regularly wet, then maybe external influences could be reasonably cited, otherwise I suspect this is one that 'looks wrong' to some people's eyes but isn't actually wrong.


Stick a photo up if unsure.
A google for "bathroom zones" should help explain this.
Zones 0 and 1 needs spray proof lights (IP55/65). Any gaps in the fitting or around the bulb usually indicate they are not spray proof. You are looking for a design that looks enclosed.
Zone 2 needs splash proof lights (IP44 or higher). I find this harder to determine, many people just use the spray proof lights here too.
If it's a taller than 2.25m ceiling, or the fitting is outside zone 2 then there are no restrictions.

Click to expand...

ssn1122 said:

It passed the last EICR so not sure what has changed

Click to expand...

• Regulations. While the wiring regs are not retrospective (unlike fire safety, e.g. cable collapse factors) an EICR is always done using the current regulations and guidance, with older installations judged by the risk due to practices of that time.
• Risk. While wiring regulations were always "safe enough" at the time they were in use, what is seen as acceptable risk changes with time and with modern usage patterns (as well as the occasional tradgedy focusing on some specific point).
• Ageing. You might have some cable or accessory that was fine 5 or 10 years ago, but now has got to the point where it is not longer OK.
• Environment. Changes to the use of a room, etc, can place electrical equipment in to a different risk region.
• Judgment. Many aspects of an EICR involve the judgement of the electrician looking at an installation and try to combine all of the above in to a code C1/C2/C3/none for the report. That has both a personal aspect, as well as an aspect based on what guidance they use (e.g. guidance from NECIEC has some differences from the Best Practice Guide #4)

westward10 said:

I didn't see the cracked sockets comment but it doesn't seem so blurry this morning

Click to expand...

Julie. said:

I take a completely different view on this report, as to me it raises a number of concerns re. the person doing the report.

Firstly it indicates that rcd is required for fault protection - why? All zs appear to be within limits.

But then again it uses the hot (reg) limits for max zs, and cold measured zs

It states waterproof (ip x7) required in bathroom etc - not required by the regs unless it genuinely is within zone 0 , other than that ip x4 is required, which is normal fittings.

These are serious misunderstandings of the regulations and testing and inspection in general, can we therefore believe the other observations - for example socket within 3m of zone 1 - is the bathroom that big? If the socket is outside of the room 701.32.1 applies.

Also waterproof required under sink (sensible but no regulation demanding it)

As for the rcd fail, perhaps this is right, but I am somewhat doubtful that the testing was completed correctly based on the misunderstandings above, did he/she test on the correct setting?

OK, there are a number of potentially valid observations, cracked sockets etc, cpc missing in switch etc.

And it does look like there is an incorrect mcb fitted.

However, I would be concerned with the workscope suggested, I would engage a different electrician to replace the valid sockets, tighten up the loose ones etc and investigate the validity of the suspicious observations, which may result in a new board.

Click to expand...