ECIR opinons

[timhoward]

I've been asked to have a gander at this one for a friend who rents a house out.
Initially, he just received this letter, and when I asked for the EICR he said "that's all I got". He paid £200 for the inspection via his letting agent.


My comment at that point was the prices seem reasonable but I'd like to see the underlying EICR.
He's been chasing for that and it finally came today, about 3 weeks later.
It's attached below with details removed.
To my mind it feels a bit OTT. The damaged socket fair enough. The Immersion heater...?
It's a split load CU. The only circuits the inspector identified/tested without RCD protection are lighting circuits.

As it's a friend it would be helpful to have some completely impartial comments if anyone has time to have a quick look.
TIA

 

[dodger421]

I’ve only given it a quick once over, but straight away tick list blindness strikes me. C2/3 for RCD’s not provided for both fault protection and additional protection. I highly doubt any are needed for fault protection on a TN-C-S but I stand ready to be corrected.

My main bug bear is why are 3 circuits simply “not tested”? And, having not tested them, how can 5.7 (prescience and adequacy of CPC’s) be anything other than a LIM or FI?

Realistically, to me, the installation hasn’t been fully tested as required by an EICR especially one that’s being done on rented accommodation people actually live in. Yes it’s better than many others I’ve seen on here but you can’t just write “circuit not tested” and call it a day!

 

[timhoward]

My main bug bear is why are 3 circuits simply “not tested”?

Yes. Even just saying what they are and 1 loop test would help qualify other comments.

 

[loz2754]

There are only 2 circuits, both lighting, without RCDs. Perhaps a cheaper option would be to fit 2 RCBOs if they're available for that consumer unit.

Best practice guide 4 gives a C2 recommendation for an immersion stat without a safety cutout, where there is a plastic header tank. Can result in water reaching boiling point if the stat fails closed circuit.

Smoke and CO alarms are not part of an EICR, but no harm in commenting on them with a recommendation if they're faulty or out of date.

 

[timhoward]

There are only 2 circuits, both lighting, without RCDs. Perhaps a cheaper option would be to fit 2 RCBOs if they're available for that consumer unit.

Best practice guide 4 gives a C2 recommendation for an immersion stat without a safety cutout, where there is a plastic header tank. Can result in water reaching boiling point if the stat fails closed circuit.

Smoke and CO alarms are not part of an EICR, but no harm in commenting on them with a recommendation if they're faulty or out of date.

Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I appreciate it.

 

[UNG]

Bit of a strange EICR it goes into fine detail about the immersion heater stat but misses even minimal detail in other parts like the RCD's and which circuits each one protects. His observation about the presence of other required labeling is a bit odd that it is missing a 230v label.
While it is not the best EICR it is by no means the worst looks to me like he was working to a set site time and ran out of time before he could fully complete the I&T

 

[Dartlec]

As others have said, as many of them go it's not a bad report - the obvious errors in the schedule aren't there...

Couple of minor petty thoughts:

Condition of the installation is not imo the place to be saying the recommended "outcome" - it's meant to say whether cabling is deteriorating, if there are poor installation practices, maybe no earth on lighting, etc. And what is an "18th Edition consumer unit" in any case....

How old is the house? Are there actually any walls containing metal parts?

I didn't think even Codebreakers would say C2 for lack of RCD on all lighting circuits? (They do say C2 for cables < 50mm I know, though BPG says C3)

Lighting in the bathroom (if no supplementary bonding) if Class 1 is a fair enough C2 - though interesting that he's given C3 for circuits passing through Zone 1 and 2 - are there any?

Circuit 11 appears to have 10mA RCD protection, not 30mA? Presumably that's just an error and there aren't RCD sockets everywhere or something?

Could the 'circuit not tested' just be blanks that have nothing connected to them, or MCBs with nothing connected? If this is a standard house I can't see anything obvious that's missing for those circuits? Or is there a feed to the garage that wasn't accessible? If they are circuits, then I'd say they should at the least be listed as unidentified - and with csa size etc.

For domestic EICRs, it really should be 100% of the installation tested (at least to the extent of Zs, identification of MCB, etc)

The lighting to bathroom may be a fair enough C2 if there is Class 1 equipment, but as you say it seems like RCBOs would be a simple option for that circuit if they are available.

What make is the board? It appears that there is 25mm tails in place, and even an isolator in the cupboard? - That suggests not just a DIY thrown in affair, so maybe already a decent board that can be easily upgraded?

Having said all that, the prices don't look too bad, though I'd have expected a dual RCD board option to be a little less (Maybe it's Hager or Crabree, rather than BG or MK?).

The price for changing smoke alarms seems a bit excessive, especially if they end up being the same make with interchangeable bases, but even not should only be an hours work. (Not part of the EICR as you say, so landlord could do it if it's just new heads...)

I'd argue that if it's a decent still current board in good condition, that adding RCBOs to the existing board is a better option that replacing with a dual RCD. You wouldn't get the SPD or metal casing, but you'd have better reduction of nuisance trips affecting lighting.

 

[timhoward]

Thanks all, many of my thoughts are being stated by others. There is definitely a feed to the garage and that wasn’t available. I think there’s a radial for a boiler, and an electric shower not listed from memory.
It’s been a couple of years since I did any work there but again from memory its a decent installation, Hager boards, all in new colours.
I’m hoping to get a look today.
The only mystery item is the suitability for external influences one, that might relate to some outside lights that I’ve previously condemned and disconnected at the garage CU (which he wouldn’t have been able to see)
I agree it’s a lot better report than most I see and I vaguely know the person who did it and rate them. Kudos for finding the immersion issue.
But I think there was a time constraint and think the rcd items weren’t fully thought through. I’ll report back what happens. Cheers all.

 

[ipf]

I can't understand why a NICEIC approved contractor doesn't use their software (or Clik).

 

[Lister1987]

Smoke and CO alarms are not part of an EICR, but no harm in commenting on them with a recommendation if they're faulty or out of date.

560.10 begs to differ, you note they're out of date/faulty, C2 it and 560.10 is your go-to reg.

Just because it's not on the standard form, doesn't mean we should be blind to it. The regs are the minimum requirement, we should be aiming to better it and yhrmodel forms are just that; models, we can improve on them.

 

[timhoward]

560.10 begs to differ, you note they're out of date/faulty, C2 it and 560.10 is your go-to reg.

I know what you mean but this does bring various complications with it:
My understanding is that BS 5389 says that the manufacturers recommendations should be followed regarding replacement of smoke detector heads.
AICO say "It is recommended that the Smoke / Heat Alarms are replaced after 10 years as a precaution"

In my opinion none of that is strong enough to say that they MUST be changed by the expiry date sticker, though it's obviously a good idea to.
The final complexity is that tenants are legally responsible for smoke alarms after the landlord has confirmed they work on the first day of a new tenancy.

For all these reasons I will mention it but not code it. I'm simply not qualified to say that a detector isn't complying with BS5389 and therefore 560.10 is being violated.
Most landlords who care will do something about it based on a note (and in this case they are already changed btw)

 

[Lister1987]

For all these reasons I will mention it but not code it. I'm simply not qualified to say that a detector isn't complying with BS5389 and therefore 560.10 is being violated.
Most landlords who care will do something about it based on a note (and in this case they are already changed btw)

A check of manufacture instructions or a query to the manufacturer can clarify that (social media does wonders), I'm led to believe that the detector standards and testing regimes account for all combinations of power source (wired working, battery dead , wiring dead, battery working , wiring dead, battery dead) and dependant on the scenario it either complies with the standard or not.

 

[timhoward]

Little update, after being messed around a few times by delightful letting agent, finally got to look at this in person tonight.


So turns out immersion Heater does have a thermal cut-out - it's the ThermTec sort where the stat has spade terminals behind it straight onto the element. Not seen many of these.


There is a socket and spur badly installed, easy to sort though.

This really leaves the lack of RCD protection for lighting that got C2's. There's actually 3 lighting circuits, one was completely untested.




Now wouldn't you like it if every cover you pulled off was like that! For a rental this is seriously above average in my experience.

I can't remember the score for Legrand (?Tenby), have a feeling new CEF Legrand parts don't fit this? Can anyone help me out here? If available 3 RCBO's and refitting a socket would sort this out in no time....

 

[Dartlec]

Little update, after being messed around a few times by delightful letting agent, finally got to look at this in person tonight.
View attachment 85870View attachment 85871

So turns out immersion Heater does have a thermal cut-out - it's the ThermTec sort where the stat has spade terminals behind it straight onto the element. Not seen many of these.

View attachment 85872
There is a socket and spur badly installed, easy to sort though.

This really leaves the lack of RCD protection for lighting that got C2's. There's actually 3 lighting circuits, one was completely untested.

View attachment 85873
View attachment 85874

Now wouldn't you like it if every cover you pulled off was like that! For a rental this is seriously above average in my experience.

I can't remember the score for Legrand (?Tenby), have a feeling new CEF Legrand parts don't fit this? Can anyone help me out here? If available 3 RCBO's and refitting a socket would sort this out in no time....

The CEF Legrand RCBOs have fitted the Tenby boards (with LeGrand parts) I've tried them on - I've replaced a couple in flats built late 00s/early 10s I think.

The boards I've worked on have had the neutral bars at the top though, so not sure if there's more than one generation. Can't quite read the model number on those MCBS, but they look identical - wouldn't only be the busbar that might be different. I can check the model number against the ones I have (still have a new RCBO and some MCBS removed from another flat)

The are full size, so space can be a premium, but looks like there is plenty in that board... If only the ones I worked on had 1/4 of the space in that one!

 

[timhoward]

@Dartlec thanks a lot for info. Close up: