Thoughts on this EICR?

I have been asked to look at this report as the customer has been given (in their words) 'A very high quote plus VAT'.

It doesn't look well written at all. However, what I cant understand is the very high quote when there is only 1 x C2.

My thoughts...

1. Nothing written in 'general condition of installation.
Just seems poor not to write anything.

Observations page...

2. 'Earth and neutral connections not in correct order'
I don't know what this means?

3. Light fitting in top room hanging by cable. (They have put C3, I would put C2. Difficult to say without seeing it.)

4. Single insulation showing C3 (I would rate this as C2)

5. O/S light no cover and exposed to weather C3 (I would put C2)

6. Downlights in bathroom not correct IP C3 (I would put C2)

Other bits of the form I'm not happy with...

7. Where it says 'agreed with' they have put N/A

8. PFC = 0.1kA (but Ze is 200ohms)? Should be 0.001KA

9. Ze = 200ohms but a large variance in the Zs results from 198ohms - 244ohms? This in itself is odd, but I have forgotten if the Ze needs to be 200ohms or less, or if it is the Zs that needs to be less than 200ohms? Also, seems rather unlikely the Ze is exactly 200.

Another point... Is this form acceptable. Shouldn't it be one that is updated to Amnd 2 (2022)?

Test results page

10. Missing R1 + R2 results
11. Odd R1 +R2 results 0.01, 0.02??? far too low.
12. No IR results whatsoever.

Looks typical of a lot of the lazy EICR's these days carried out by people with limited experience.
Given you have only posted 4 pages of the 13 it makes me wonder what the rest of it is like

No 2 means the neutral conductors and cpcs are not to terminal order within the consumer unit.

Seems to be picky about the wrong things, I'm sure there is no reg that mandates ordered terminals,but as above many of the others are C2 in my opinion,the C2 for fire rated lights is probably not either

Generally agree with you HHD, but differ on the following:

HappyHippyDad said:

4. Single insulation showing C3 (I would rate this as C2)

Click to expand...

I might C3 this depending on where it is (eg. in meter cupboard accessible with key, or in ceiling void for downlights), and/or how much is showing.

HappyHippyDad said:

6. Downlights in bathroom not correct IP C3 (I would put C2)

Click to expand...

If out of all zones, I might give this a C3, or maybe no code.

HappyHippyDad said:

8. PFC = 0.1kA (but Ze is 200ohms)? Should be 0.001KA

Click to expand...

Zdb may be lower than Ze (parallel paths like bonding etc), which would give a higher fault current so the reading may be correct... However, for TT, a fault between L and N would almost certainly give the highest result, which is what should be recorded. 100A is far far lower than anything I have encountered personally.

HappyHippyDad said:

10. Missing R1 + R2 results

Click to expand...

For the ring, I don't always consider R1+R2 necessary, if I've carried out a Zs at each point.

HappyHippyDad said:

Another point... Is this form acceptable. Shouldn't it be one that is updated to Amnd 2 (2022)?

Click to expand...

I personally don't think it matters if the report is otherwise well written.

The actual listed observations seem easily resolvable, comfortably less than a day's work.

The picture of the supply poses a few questions though...
It looks to me like it needs
-a new rod with a lower rA than the currently stated 200 ohms
-the up-front RCD moving so it's actually up-front, the KMF being next with a shroud for the twin-earth, all to allow sorting out the single insulation.
-the earthing investigated, e.g. are those two in the MET going to rod and inside to CU (report says main earth is 10 sq mm)
-or is the 4mm CPC of the twin/earth the main earth for inside (which would meet adiabatic with this low PFC)
-is the bonding connected inside, in which case min 6mm bonding might be supported by 4mm CPC.