Am I being taken for a ride?

[surreygirl]

I had an electrician come to do a safety check at my property that I let out last week and he has recommended that remedial work should be done at a cost of 2,100 pounds, These are:-

Upgrade of eco 7db
Upgrade of 2 x circuits to RCD protection
Install of isolation point for underfloor heating
identification of points where required
Fusing of points
Enclosure of exposed wiring - these are wires that are not in trunking
Investigation of supply wiring and condition of main isolator and repair
Retermination of required points
cable enclosures

Nothing listed but the sub total is 1,750 plus VAT comes to 2,100

Is that a lot! I last had a test done five years ago, true the wire of the economy 7 is in a situation which is not assessable, however he wants to run a wire from it across the lounge and into the kitchen!

But the amount seems excessive and it is through the Agents who manage the property for me.

Any suggestions would be very helpful.

Many thanks Surreygirl

 

[surreygirl]

Absence of RCD (411.5.2; 531.2 C3
Absence of RCD 421.4.9; 543.2 C3
Accessory damaged 421.1.3 c2
Inconsistent resistance values for ring circuits F1
Characteristic of supply do not conform to industry standards 612.3.2 F1
Insulated cable not taken inside the enclosure of an assessor 412 C2

This what he has said in the report for a safety certificate

 

[surreygirl]

Absence of RCD (411.5.2; 531.2 C3
Absence of RCD 421.4.9; 543.2 C3
Accessory damaged 421.1.3 c2
Inconsistent resistance values for ring circuits F1
Characteristic of supply do not conform to industry standards 612.3.2 F1
Insulated cable not taken inside the enclosure of an assessor 412 C2

This what he has said in the report for a safety certificate

 

[Octopus]

Absence of RCD on what circuits?

 

[Phil Thompson]

Is he rewiring the ring final circuit for that price?
Is there a new consumer unit being fitted?

 

[westward10]

411.5.2 indicates a TT system and if this is the case I would think a C3 inappropriate.
421.4.9 is not a Regulation at all unless my eyes deceive me.
543.2 has nothing to do with rcds.
421.1.3 has little do do with damaged accessories.
612.3.2 makes no reference to characteristics of the supply.

 

[SparkyChick]

Absence of RCD (411.5.2; 531.2 C3
Absence of RCD 421.4.9; 543.2 C3
Accessory damaged 421.1.3 c2
Inconsistent resistance values for ring circuits F1
Characteristic of supply do not conform to industry standards 612.3.2 F1
Insulated cable not taken inside the enclosure of an assessor 412 C2

This what he has said in the report for a safety certificate

C3 is improvement recommended only, so technically you are not required to have anything done for these items to achieve a satisfactory report. What I find interesting is the regulations stated there... 411.5.2 relates to TT earthing systems (what does the report claim your earthing system is?), 531.2 relates to selection of equipment and outlines some key characteristics of the RCDs we are supposed to use, 421.4.9 does not exist in the regs (this may be a typo) and 543.2 details the different types of protective conductor and what is allowable in terms of their implementation and is nothing to do with RCDs.

Accessory damaged C2, this is a legitimate item that requires work providing the item is actually damaged.

Inconsistent resistance values for ring final circuits, Further Investigation. Whether this requires further attention depends largely on what this statement means. If the values are varying by say 0.01 ohms between tests, this could simply be due to the tolerances of the test equipment in use, certainly I wouldn't be worried about it. But if say, r1 is radically different from rn or r2 is way off roughly 1.667 x r1 (or rn), then there could be a bad connection which needs to be investigated to ensure the ring is safe for continued operation. Has he supplied the values of r1, rn and r2 for the RFCs in question?

Characteristic of supply do not conform to industry standard 612.3.2... interesting... 612.3.2 in the regs relates to what constitutes acceptable values for insulation resistance test results and has nothing to do with the characteristics of the supply (which include things like 230v nominal voltage, 50Hz nominal frequency and other important values). So I have absolutely zero clue what he's getting at with this other than possibly just BS to justify charging you an indeterminate fee for investigating a problem which may not actually exist.

The insulation not taken inside an enclosure, yes, that can be a problem but it depends on where it is and what it is as to whether you can legitimately do anything about it. If it's in the meter cupboard for example, you're not responsible for much of what's in there and fixing some of it may require the presence of the seal fairy to cut the seals off the meter/service head (we're not supposed to do that).

You want it to be safe, but with the limited information available, I'd say this guy is a chancer trying to take you for a ride.

Definitely, find a spark from the forums who is local to you and take the advice the guys have given you... get a second opinion from someone else. This could be either a brand new EICR (don't got for a cheap one, on your average house, I look to be there all day and would charge around £240) or engage someone to work through the report and double check what the original guy has put down (as I said, I've done that for someone for a house sale and it cost them around £120 plus materials - in that case, the guy made some very dodgy claims about work that supposedly needed doing and the suggested remedy included a new consumer unit which would have resulted in a bill significantly higher). And of course, please come back and let us know how it turns out.

 

[SparkyChick]

411.5.2 indicates a TT system and if this is the case I would think a C3 inappropriate.
421.4.9 is not a Regulation at all unless my eyes deceive me.
543.2 has nothing to do with rcds.
421.1.3 has little do do with damaged accessories.
612.3.2 makes no reference to characteristics of the supply.

Beaten to it by @westward10

 

[westward10]

Attention to detail we are SC

 

[Octopus]

Attention to detail we are SC

Or maybe too much time on your hands!

 

[SparkyChick]

I'm in the mood for regulations... spent the weekend inspecting a small office building and am in the process of writing it up

 

[Des 56]

Being a Star Trek fan,this thread reminds me of a Mr Spock who is always quoting regs to the puzzled captain.

Oh and Spock gets them right

 

[Pete999]

Beaten to it by @westward10

Being a Star Trek fan,this thread reminds me of a Mr Spock who is always quoting regs to the puzzled captain.

Oh and Spock gets them right

He would Des he's a VULCAN, pity Tony Cable isn't a Vulcan, cus he is not right all of the time, likes to think so though

 

[westward10]

It is all very well composing "technical" Reports, maybe not in this case, if the client is technical in such matters and not a layperson but if you are going to quote Regulations make sure they are correct.

 

[Rpa07]

Hoisted by his petard! (I looked it up - it fits!)

 

[surreygirl]

C3 is improvement recommended only, so technically you are not required to have anything done for these items to achieve a satisfactory report. What I find interesting is the regulations stated there... 411.5.2 relates to TT earthing systems (what does the report claim your earthing system is?), 531.2 relates to selection of equipment and outlines some key characteristics of the RCDs we are supposed to use, 421.4.9 does not exist in the regs (this may be a typo) and 543.2 details the different types of protective conductor and what is allowable in terms of their implementation and is nothing to do with RCDs.

Accessory damaged C2, this is a legitimate item that requires work providing the item is actually damaged.

Inconsistent resistance values for ring final circuits, Further Investigation. Whether this requires further attention depends largely on what this statement means. If the values are varying by say 0.01 ohms between tests, this could simply be due to the tolerances of the test equipment in use, certainly I wouldn't be worried about it. But if say, r1 is radically different from rn or r2 is way off roughly 1.667 x r1 (or rn), then there could be a bad connection which needs to be investigated to ensure the ring is safe for continued operation. Has he supplied the values of r1, rn and r2 for the RFCs in question?

Characteristic of supply do not conform to industry standard 612.3.2... interesting... 612.3.2 in the regs relates to what constitutes acceptable values for insulation resistance test results and has nothing to do with the characteristics of the supply (which include things like 230v nominal voltage, 50Hz nominal frequency and other important values). So I have absolutely zero clue what he's getting at with this other than possibly just BS to justify charging you an indeterminate fee for investigating a problem which may not actually exist.

The insulation not taken inside an enclosure, yes, that can be a problem but it depends on where it is and what it is as to whether you can legitimately do anything about it. If it's in the meter cupboard for example, you're not responsible for much of what's in there and fixing some of it may require the presence of the seal fairy to cut the seals off the meter/service head (we're not supposed to do that).

You want it to be safe, but with the limited information available, I'd say this guy is a chancer trying to take you for a ride.

Definitely, find a spark from the forums who is local to you and take the advice the guys have given you... get a second opinion from someone else. This could be either a brand new EICR (don't got for a cheap one, on your average house, I look to be there all day and would charge around £240) or engage someone to work through the report and double check what the original guy has put down (as I said, I've done that for someone for a house sale and it cost them around £120 plus materials - in that case, the guy made some very dodgy claims about work that supposedly needed doing and the suggested remedy included a new consumer unit which would have resulted in a bill significantly higher). And of course, please come back and let us know how it turns out.

Thank you for all that. How do I find a sparky near me!! I am in Kingston upon Thames!

Thank you for all that and taking the time and trouble to work through it!

I will get another quote or at least get a sparky to go over his report.