After a bit of peer review of a report that has been done

[Lister1987]

Landlord has had an EICR done on the property as is required under the new PRS legislation, got a copy of the report and I'm not overly impressed.

The property has passed but there are parts of the report that don't sit right with me and I want to know what my peers think? Am I being ---- or is there something in my concerns. Report is attached with redacted details.

My concerns as as follows;

Date of last inspection -Being a PRS property and (I'm led to believe) the client has used the same people every time - Records should be available right?

Summary of condition notes about minor deviations from BS7671 but does not list them; no point in stating it then right, I mean if you can't list what they are.

Report has come back as satisfactory so from the LL POV, they're unlikely to bother with anything I note but this is for my knowledge rather than anything else

Supply and characteristics
TN-C is ticked as the supply type; I believe this is a typo as the head is a tncs one looped service.

Number of live conductors; AC and Supply polarity are ticked but no phase/wire details recorded.

DNO Fuse is listed as BS1361 60A however it was never inspected, nor DNO contacted, I'm wondering if they have pulled fuse before and know the size or if they're going off 6mm bonding conductors and tails.

Main protective earthing conductor is recorded as 16mm with 6mm main bonding conductors. I take umberage with them being verified as I don't believe this was done (certainly if you look at the under-sink shot I posted in #earthing-and-bonding , it's just a link across the water meter, with no further signs of bonding (haven't checked boiler).

Incorrect BS type in main Switch details. Recorded as a 30mA RCD main switch which is not the case, standard 100A DP Isolator on board. No voltage rating/fuse setting recorded. 27ms trip time recorded.

OBS
Unable to access conservatory lighting feed due to tenant property. - not 100% true or accurate. Conservatory light and power appears to be fed from downstiars lighting and/or power circ hits - I don't dispute the FI code applied.

3.3 514.13.1 - From what I see the clamps have the required 951 labels, no external MET so not sure why he's C3'd it.

3.4 confirmation of earthing conductor size - 542.3 543.1.1 - ticked but as DNO OCPD not verified can't say if 6mm is appropriate or not.

3.6 confirmation of main protective bonding conductor size - 544.1 (as above)

3.7 condition and accessibility of mainbonding connections - 543.3.1 544.1.2

4.9 correct identification of circuit details and protective devices 514.8.1 514.9.1 - No schedule present, incorrect CU labelling, no mention of Conservatory being fed off downstairs lighting/power circuits - Item is ticked

4.11 presence of non-standard mixed cable colours label 514.14 missing yet ticked.

4.13 other labelling (514) - no mention of Conservatory fed off downstairs lighting/power

4.17 protection against EMI where cables enter enclosure (521.5.1) marked N/A - tails enter together in suitable gland - tick instead?

4.21 connections tight and secure - Not a torque driver in sight, yet ticked

5.2 cables supported throughout (521.10.202 522.8.5) marked as LIM but not listed in limitations

5.10 prescribed zones - marked as LIM but not listed in limitations.

5.11 as above

5.17 terminations (526.6) ticked but not a torque driver in sight

6.3 Shaver socket in bathroom comply to BS EN 61558-2-5 (701.512.3) marked N/A even though device is present

6.4 Supp Bonding not present/verified but marked N/A

Just wondering everyone's thoughts? Am I being anally retentive?

 

[Lister1987]

I've already had some feedback as below;

Earthing arrangement is incorrect - ticked TN-C, which is not permitted for use in the UK.

10% visual inspection is grossly inadequate, particularly on a domestic where most/all would be easily accessible.

Observations is severely lacking - should be many things there on an older installation.
R1+R2 1.37 on the ring circuit is excessively high, doesn't correlate in any way to the other resistances.

R2 values for both lighting circuits are implausibly low - 0.02 ohms?

Also surprising that anyone is still writing these things out by hand in 2020.


--

Anyone want to add?

 

[Intoelectrics]

The cert is very scruffy, looks like one of those cheap flyby jobbies to me.

 

[suffolkspark]

If hes put an FI on then the report is un-satisfactory

 

[Baddegg]

Do people still use pens for this stuff?....10% sampling is what it is mate if the landlords agreed it, personally I agree with you but....it is a bit poor in its presentation and no excuses regards pre filled out forms as per iCertifi/Electra cert erc....they have actually ticked the boxes manually? End of the day the inspector has signed it, wrongly as @suffolkspark points out so it’s on him/her, with the advent of this new legislation this was always going to be the case with reports, some people don’t care some people want to make a quick buck and most landlords have no clue what they are looking at and quite rightly in they position rely on the presumed expert......are you raising these issues with your landlord?

 

[Mike Johnson]

Even though it has no bearing on the content the scurfiness of the report is a good indication of the care and attention this electrician gives to their work.

 

[UNG]

@Lister1987 is this a property you are renting as a few pictures may give a better insight to what you are saying
Overall the report looks very amateurish and is poorly presented by someone who didn't have enough time to do it properly

 

[Lister1987]

@Lister1987 is this a property you are renting as a few pictures may give a better insight to what you are saying
Overall the report looks very amateurish and is poorly presented by someone who didn't have enough time to do it properly

Yea I'm the tenant. I'm working on getting some images. The guy was in and out in about 90-120mins.

 

[Lister1987]

.....are you raising these issues with your landlord?

I haven't as of yet but it is my intent to do so - being a trainee I want to be able to back up my opinions with facts either from regs or consensus of my peers (the latter doesn't present as fact I know bit peer review is still a valid form of advise imo).

In some defence of the landlord/letting agent; they do reply promptly and adequately to repair requestsivr found nothing inherently dangerous but is just the shear volume of small flags that when waved together present a bigger picture.

 

[GBDamo]

Pretty poor all round.

The only thing that annoys me is all the 'absolute' statements like;-

"All cables fully supported throughout their length"

"All cables installed in prescribed zones"

In a domestic installation it is an inevitable limitation, you simply cannot put anything other than LIM in the box without invasive investigation that no landlord will approve of.

The forms and procedures need vastly slimming down for domestic EICRs coupled with strict penalties and enforcement of their completion.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Date of last inspection -Being a PRS property and (I'm led to believe) the client has used the same people every time - Records should be available right?

EICRs for rentals have only been a requirement for a few months now, there's a good chance there are no previous records available.

Main protective earthing conductor is recorded as 16mm with 6mm main bonding conductors. I take umberage with them being verified as I don't believe this was done (certainly if you look at the under-sink shot I posted in #earthing-and-bonding , it's just a link across the water meter, with no further signs of bonding (haven't checked boiler).

This would be evident at the MET and by testing. There would be 2 X 6mm singles in the earth bar. Disconnect and continuity test each to the pipework would confirm. Similar test for earthing conductor

3.4 confirmation of earthing conductor size - 542.3 543.1.1 - ticked but as DNO OCPD not verified can't say if 6mm is appropriate or not.

This is listed as 16mm. Worst case, run adiabatic using the PFC and a 100A BS1361 (the max expected in domestic), then check 544.1.1. It should comply at 10mm.

4.21 connections tight and secure - Not a torque driver in sight, yet ticked

A tough one. A lot of sparks (there are at least a few on this forum) don't use torque drivers, and the torque data is rarely available on the board itself.

5.17 terminations (526.6) ticked but not a torque driver in sight

Probably wouldn't use a torque driver for tightening terminations at accessories. I never have, and don't recall seeing manufacturer's data for such.

6.4 Supp Bonding not present/verified but marked N/A

RCD protection on all circuits serving the bathroom, main bonding confirmed? Sup bonding not required.

Other than that, mostly agree with your comments. It's not a great report. Have you noticed any C1s or C2s that the inspector may have missed?

 

[Lister1987]

EICRs for rentals have only been a requirement for a few months now, there's a good chance there are no previous records available.


This would be evident at the MET and by testing. There would be 2 X 6mm singles in the earth bar. Disconnect and continuity test each to the pipework would confirm. Similar test for earthing conductor


This is listed as 16mm. Worst case, run adiabatic using the PFC and a 100A BS1361 (the max expected in domestic), then check 544.1.1. It should comply at 10mm.


A tough one. A lot of sparks (there are at least a few on this forum) don't use torque drivers, and the torque data is rarely available on the board itself.


Probably wouldn't use a torque driver for tightening terminations at accessories. I never have, and don't recall seeing manufacturer's data for such.


RCD protection on all circuits serving the bathroom, main bonding confirmed? Sup bonding not required.

Other than that, mostly agree with your comments. It's not a great report. Have you noticed any C1s or C2s that the inspector may have missed?

I don't recal any wander lead test being done to either pipework, just a open draws, eyeball and tick.

Was doing to run it through it but wanted to see if anyone had done similar and could remember off-hand, lazy I know.

Fair point about the torque driver, would be down roof manufacturers had torque data available for thier 'older' switchgear, what is it thru say about ignorance being no excuse.

Was working on the basis that it may have been a requirement when the house was constructed bit my knowledge of older regs ain't great, obviously the regs since did away with it is RCDs are present.

No immediate C1s visible, although the socket next to the extractor chimney has a hoping hole to the socket, whether or not out-of-reach precludes it being dangerous is down to interpretation.

Wanting to get my MFT fixed before I go around double checking results.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

A couple more points:

5.2 cables supported throughout (521.10.202 522.8.5) marked as LIM but not listed in limitations

5.10 prescribed zones - marked as LIM but not listed in limitations.

5.11 as above

These are listed, in the printed note below the limitations.

Was working on the basis that it may have been a requirement when the house was constructed bit my knowledge of older regs ain't great, obviously the regs since did away with it is RCDs are present.

The EICR is carried out to current regs, you don't need to worry about it complying to earlier editions

 

[Lister1987]

A couple more points:


These are listed, in the printed note below the limitations.


The EICR is carried out to current regs, you don't need to worry about it complying to earlier editions

I must have missed them, apologies.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I must have missed them, apologies.

No apologies necessary Fella, we're all here to learn from each other

 

[Lister1987]

No apologies necessary Fella, we're all here to learn from each other

And learning I am if I didn't have the limited knowledge I have at the mo I probably wouldn't give it a second thought but as I do and have a family to think about, I can't help but look at this and think something doesn't sit right.

I see if can get pictures of the board cover off (not changed since the ones I posted when I moved in to be fair), can't remember if I posted pictures of the bonding, will get them and add them.