Rewire after failed EICR. Have we been scammed?

My parents had an EICR completed after a change of tenant in the shop and flat property, this took place March 2021.

The summary of the report stated that the premises was dangerous and the full rewire was required to make it safe.

I have since completed a the C&G inspection and testing course through work and took a chance to have a look at the EICR given to us by our estate management firm.

I have noticed that the report does not contain any observations with the classification of C1 or C2 that would result in the requiring a full rewire. And also the inspector did not carry out any electrical tests to verify the condition of the existing installation (insulation resistance). The only observations included we C3 or FI all of which would not require a full rewire to make it safe.

There are also other mistakes and ommissions which suggest that the report was false and made to look like the premises was unsafe just to convince my parents that the wiring needed changing.

The inspector was contracted to carry out the EICR for the full premises which included a ground floor shop and first floor flat. I can only see information regarding the downstairs shop (DB1).

Now I am not suggesting that a week long course makes me an expert in EICR but it definitely makes me more aware of what to look for in a report.

We put our trust in the inspector and the l letting agent who recommended them.

My parents spent a lot of money on the full rewire and a second opinion has told us that the rewire was not required.

We believe that the inspector has acted unlawfully (breach of contract by not completing all tests included in the EICR, except limitations) and also immorraly. Both which means my parents paid out £8000 when it wasn't required.

The inspector is also a member of NAPIT so is obliged to carry out work to the proper electrical standard.

Does anyone else think we have sufficient recourse to make a complaint to trading standards, NAPIT and potential small claims?

I have attached the EICR for reference.

Thanks

If there’s no C1 or C2, then the EICR is satisfactory.
C3 doesn’t mean it’s unsafe, but as the shop is open to the public, then they would be trying to make it as safe as possible for the general public.

It could be argued that a rewire wasn’t needed, maybe just a new consumer unit to add rcd protection to the circuits.

littlespark said:

If there’s no C1 or C2, then the EICR is satisfactory.
C3 doesn’t mean it’s unsafe, but as the shop is open to the public, then they would be trying to make it as safe as possible for the general public.

It could be argued that a rewire wasn’t needed, maybe just a new consumer unit to add rcd protection to the circuits.

Click to expand...

Hi littlespark

Thanks for the reply.

I agree with what you say. I believe that the statement in section E should not have been made as a complete rewire was not the only remedy alongside the fact that the electrical system should have been marked as satisfactory.

Thanks

Page 4 shows a 30mA RCD for all circuits, but doesn't record trip times. ?????

brianmoooore said:

Page 4 shows a 30mA RCD for all circuits, but doesn't record trip times. ?????

Click to expand...

My course lecturer pointed thus out to me as well. Do you agree that this EICR has not been carried out properly and the statement that the premises is unsatisfactory and unsafe is false?

brianmoooore said:

Page 4 shows a 30mA RCD for all circuits, but doesn't record trip times. ?????

Click to expand...

Also, no maximum Zs stated but no Zs measured apart from one.

TT system recorded but Ze recorded as 0.25 ohms. Only measured Zs recorded as 54.5 ohms

As littlespark has written above, no C1s or C2s = officially satisfactory.
I've recommended full rewires on many occasions where the installation is 'satisfactory', but this is always because there are so many alterations and extensions proposed to be made to that installation, that it would be easier, cheaper and give better results, to simply start again.
Assuming the new installation is similar in location and number of points to the original, then that does not apply here.

brianmoooore said:

As littlespark has written above, no C1s or C2s = officially satisfactory.
I've recommended full rewires on many occasions where the installation is 'satisfactory', but this is always because there are so many alterations and extensions proposed to be made to that installation, that it would be easier, cheaper and give better results, to simply start again.
Assuming the new installation is similar in location and number of points to the original, then that does not apply here.

Click to expand...

This EICR was due to a new tenant occupying the premises. No work was planned apart from what was said on the outcome of the EICR.

Since the EICR was carried out extensive rewiring was completed. All of which has been tested and Inspected.

As the initial EICR was completed incorrectly I believe that the rewiring was not necessary.

Thanks for your reply

Have you asked the inspector involved to comment?

brianmoooore said:

Have you asked the inspector involved to comment?

Click to expand...

No not yet. The original inspection took place in March 2021 and the rewire has since been completed.

I have spoken to the Citizens Advice but I was looking to see what other inspectors might think of the report.

I will probably contact the inspector to try and remedy it and look to putting a complaint to trading standards and NAPIT

The EICR is not very helpful in terms of gauging the condition of the wiring at the time - which by itself would suggest it's not a great 'condition report', which is what it is meant to be after all.

Do you have any idea what the cabling was like before they tested?

The schedule of tests seems to suggest that they carried out no Insulation Resistance tests, which makes it hard to judge if there was any problem with the existing cabling or not.

If it was all VIR (50s black rubber) then a rewire could be fairly recommended just on visual inspection basis. If the cabling was anything from 70s on, then there is every chance it was still perfectly fit for purpose.

There are time when a rewire is still a sensible consideration - if lots of adjusting of sockets is needed, for example, or if the circuits are so interlinked and confusing that starting from scratch would be better. But that should always come with a discussion of the pros and cons.

Unless the wiring was very old, or seriously damaged in ways that are not clear from the EICR, I can't see any reason why a rewire would be required to make it safe.

Did you get any quotation in writing at the time, or anything in writing that went into more detail than 'needs rewiring'?

IMO, the EICR is not very useful and is missing even the minimum tests that I'd consider should have been done for a dwelling (even aside the possible issue with shop/flat confusion).

Stroma/Napit will probably have a complaints procedure in place, which may well be worth following up on. At the very least, it will mean that they will have to justify their report to their inspector at an annual assessment.

Peggyhenry89 said:

My course lecturer pointed thus out to me as well. Do you agree that this EICR has not been carried out properly and the statement that the premises is unsatisfactory and unsafe is false?

Click to expand...

No I don't agree that the statement of unsatisfactory is false. The lack of RCD protection for certain circuits would attract a c2 from a lot of people, and it can be justified. Basic insulation of a conductor outside of an enclosure may also attract a c2. The testing carried out has been poor, but overall there's a good chance the report, even when carried out properly, will still be unsatisfactory.

In that case they should have been C2s, not C3s.
There's so little of the results filled in, that we can't make a judgement.

Matthewd29 said:

No I don't agree that the statement of unsatisfactory is false. The lack of RCD protection for certain circuits would attract a c2 from a lot of people, and it can be justified. Basic insulation of a conductor outside of an enclosure may also attract a c2. The testing carried out has been poor, but overall there's a good chance the report, even when carried out properly, will still be unsatisfactory.

Click to expand...

Hi Matthewd29

Yes I agree that the absence of RCD protection can be a C2. However, the regs are not retroactive and also if disconnection times are met then an RCD is not required. The inspector hasn't tested the Zs to determine if disconnection times would have been met with the original installation. Also, if the inspector believed that the lack of RCDs was a C2 then why didn't he put them down as C2 in the observations? If RCDs were required then a total rewire was not necessary, the CU could have been changed keeping the original wiring. If the IR was carried out then the condition of wiring would've been assessed and may have meant that the wiring may have needed to have been changed.

Sorry if I am being unreasonable in my judgement. I just feel that if there is a chance my parents have been ripped off I want to ensure that the person responsible has been held to account

Thanks

I think we’re now getting into realms of legality, and although we can give advice, you may need the services of an actual lawyer.

You can approach their CPS, Napit and ask them to comment, and trading standards… But I don’t see what they could do.
You could also check the company in question is actually a member of Napit, and not just using their name.

For a job costing £8k, a lot of people would have gone for 2 or 3 quotes, and this consultation with other companies may have brought up the inaccuracies on the EICR…. That might not have happened if there was a short time frame before getting the tenant in.