Coding advice on EICR please

[dannyG85]

Looking for some advice as im fairly new to EICR reporting, although have passed 2394/95 and have carried out a couple of straight forward reports.

Firstly, on a EICR I have carried out for a family member I have found an old MEM memera 2000 metal clad consumer unit, over 8 years old. I was wondering if this is acceptable as fulilling fire rated properties of consumer units to 17th edition (I have a feeling it might not be?), or would be classed as C3 as not complying with current regs even though it is metal clad? I would imagine it has not been tested to same standards as current metal clad boards?

Secondly whilst carrying out testing on the ring main of the above board, the RCBO test button would not operate properly (once in about 5 attempts) so clearly an issue. My feeling is that it is probably a C2 and would deem the EICR as unsatisfactory, but wondered whether there was an argument for coding it C3 as lack of an RCD in this scenario would only merit a C3 anyway? The RCBO in question passed all other tests.

Finally, in regards to fixing any issues (if RCBO test button issue is C2), can I speak to the client, replace the RCBO and issue the satisfactory EICR, or would I have to go through the process of failing the EICR, replacing the RCBO and reissuing another EICR, or even just a minor works?

Apologies for such a long question. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Octopus]

Old cu = no code

RCBO test button = did it test properly on other tests?

 

[KEV 1 N]

When doing an EICR, you have to bear in mind the age of the property. If what's there now complied with the regs at the time, then I would not code it, provided the DB is in good condition ie no unblanked holes etc.
If there rcbo is present and has failed...C2
If your doing the work for family, then I would replace the faulty rcbo and test its operation, as opposed to failing it first on the report, no different to having an mot on you car, noticing a brake light is off before you take it, replace bulb why let it fail first?

 

[KEV 1 N]

You mention "old" MEM Memera 2000, at 8 years it's a baby compared to what ive come across still in
use...
..
Not the actual board but I've had to do EICRs on similar!

 

[westward10]

EICRs do not fail they are either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If you have a Memera 2000 rcbo then by all means replace it if the client is happy with this.

 

[streamer]

Good luck replacing an MEM RCBO, it will cost a lot of money. Not that that should put you off if it is the correct thing to do.

 

[dannyG85]

Old cu = no code

RCBO test button = did it test properly on other tests?

Yes passed RCD test operating times

 

[dannyG85]

You mention "old" MEM Memera 2000, at 8 years it's a baby compared to what ive come across still in
use...
..View attachment 39400
Not the actual board but I've had to do EICRs on similar!

Not sure of exact age of board, but the property in question is my old flat, so I know its at least 8 years old!

 

[dannyG85]

Good luck replacing an MEM RCBO, it will cost a lot of money. Not that that should put you off if it is the correct thing to do.

I'm pretty sure these are compatible, same as whats in the board now, not too expensive:

Eaton EAD32BH30C 32 Amp 6kA Type B 30mA Memera RCBO - Edwardes - https://www.edwardes.co.uk/en/products/eaton-ead32bh30c-32-amp-6ka-type-b-memera-rcbo?utm_medium=google_shopping&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=google_shopping&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn4X55f3M1wIVgsYbCh3_OQg6EAQYBCABEgKoPfD_BwE

 

[dannyG85]

When doing an EICR, you have to bear in mind the age of the property. If what's there now complied with the regs at the time, then I would not code it, provided the DB is in good condition ie no unblanked holes etc.
If there rcbo is present and has failed...C2
If your doing the work for family, then I would replace the faulty rcbo and test its operation, as opposed to failing it first on the report, no different to having an mot on you car, noticing a brake light is off before you take it, replace bulb why let it fail first?

Yes it is in good condition, I just wondered whether it would been tested to the same fire rating standards as a newer metal clad board, and that by indicating C3 it would be evident that it is an older board and would not be something we would install now. I will most likely not code it unless I see any relevant info stating otherwise.

 

[streamer]

I'm pretty sure these are compatible, same as whats in the board now, not too expensive:

Eaton EAD32BH30C 32 Amp 6kA Type B 30mA Memera RCBO - Edwardes - https://www.edwardes.co.uk/en/products/eaton-ead32bh30c-32-amp-6ka-type-b-memera-rcbo?utm_medium=google_shopping&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=google_shopping&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn4X55f3M1wIVgsYbCh3_OQg6EAQYBCABEgKoPfD_BwE

That's good to know. Whenever I've tried to get MEM ones they have been a ridiculous price.

 

[westward10]

I'm pretty sure these are compatible, same as whats in the board now, not too expensive:

Eaton EAD32BH30C 32 Amp 6kA Type B 30mA Memera RCBO - Edwardes - https://www.edwardes.co.uk/en/products/eaton-ead32bh30c-32-amp-6ka-type-b-memera-rcbo?utm_medium=google_shopping&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=google_shopping&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn4X55f3M1wIVgsYbCh3_OQg6EAQYBCABEgKoPfD_BwE

That is not compatible with a Memera 2000 board.

 

[telectrix]

bottom line here is:
1. is it safe for continued use. no code
2. is there a n imminent danger. code 1
3. is there a potential danger, code 2.
4.could an improvement increase safety.code 3.

 

[Andy78]

When doing an EICR, you have to bear in mind the age of the property. If what's there now complied with the regs at the time, then I would not code it

I can't agree with that at all for several reasons.

Periodic inspection is to be carried out using the current version of the regs as the standard of safety.
How is one to reliably establish exactly when something was installed and therefore whether or not it complied ?
How is an inspector expected to have a detailed knowledge of all previous editions of the regulations with which to assess previous installations to ?

An example of the above points.
Today I removed a fuse board from the 1940s/50s that was supplying the lighting circuits in an old house. None of the circuits had cpcs, the neutrals were fused, the wooden door could be opened without a tool or key and the fuses could similarly be removed. With fuses removed live parts were accessible that were easily touched.

It could well be that all that complied when installed, but had I successfully established this by accurately determining the install date and checking the relevant regs, would I be right in saying no codes were appropriate ?

 

[Ian1981]

I can't agree with that at all for several reasons.

Periodic inspection is to be carried out using the current version of the regs as the standard of safety.
How is one to reliably establish exactly when something was installed and therefore whether or not it complied ?
How is an inspector expected to have a detailed knowledge of all previous editions of the regulations with which to assess previous installations to ?

An example of the above points.
Today I removed a fuse board from the 1940s/50s that was supplying the lighting circuits in an old house. None of the circuits had cpcs, the neutrals were fused, the wooden door could be opened without a tool or key and the fuses could similarly be removed. With fuses removed live parts were accessible that were easily touched.

It could well be that all that complied when installed, but had I successfully established this by accurately determining the install date and checking the relevant regs, would I be right in saying no codes were appropriate ?

Any photos of the board?
Never seen one with a wooden door.