EIC and EICR issues

[Googers]

Hi folks, first time poster and soon-to-be landlord's assistant (letting my partner's property out now that she's moved in). We've just had a new consumer unit installed and an EIC produced for the works as required, and the electrician told us he checked every socket and circuit as part of his works - even replaced two faulty sockets during his checks.

Given that he's tested everything (wording from our invoice below states as such) we are wondering if the EIC can be used in place of an EICR. As it's likened to an MOT, you wouldn't MOT a new car, but then a new CU and circuit checks is more of an engine replacement than a new car, yadda yadda...

Invoice states:
1 NEW FUSE BOARD . Replace old fuse board . Supply and fit new 10-way RCBO fuse board with SPD Surge protection . Upgrade meter tails to 25mm . Upgrade main earth to 16mm . Upgrade gas earth bonding to 10mm . Upgrade water earth bonding to 10mm if the existing 6mm is not connected . Test all circuits . Issue Electrical Certificate*

*t's and c's

Anyway, we are supposed to have tenants moving in tomorrow but as we only have the EIC and not the EICR, the agent isn't budging. Has anyone got any experience with using an EIC and supporting info to show that all areas have been checked, or are we going to have to try and arrange an additional check that will delay the tenancy?

Cheers!

 

[loz2754]

Correct, poor terminology on my part. All circuits fed from that board must be fully inspected and tested to ensure they comply with BS7671. And any sub-boards fed from that board would be included. Additional boards may not be included, but I’d guess that’s unlikely in most private rentals?

If the accessory is connected to a circuit in the CU you’ve changed then it’s affected by the CU change. So you’ll still need to test IR with 2-way switches in both positions for example.

How do you know where the end of a circuit is if you haven’t inspected and tested it though? You need to measure R1+R2 at every point as sampling isn’t allowed in an EIC (and your corresponding tests for an RFC need to be conducted at every point too). Do you do that with a blindfold on so you can say you didn’t inspect anything other than your work at the board?

I think we can all agree when you do a board change you don’t do all of your testing sat in front of the board if you’re doing it properly. And that’s when you’ll see things like non-IP rated lights in Zone 2 and you’ll document those non-compliance’s accordingly.

I agree that any self respecting sparky, and of course everyone on this forum ?, would not just change a consumer unit and do all the testing only at the consumer unit. And when reconnecting the circuits we would want to be certain that it is safe to do so. And that would include a Zs test at every socket. And a quick visual of all the accessories to check for damage. And the protective conductors are tested, preferably at the furthest point of each circuit. And blah blah blah....

However, this would still not be quite meeting the more thorough, stringent inspection and testing that is provided on an EICR.

I appreciate what you're getting at. But from a landlord's perspective, what they're charged with obtaining before they can let out their property, is an EICR. An EIC can only be used as a substitute if it covers a complete rewire, or a new build, to satisfy HM Government.

Just getting a feeling that we're very close to being in agreement, but might perchance never fully close the gap...

 

[dodger421]

I think you’re right, we basically agree and again I’m only really arguing this because I’ve not got anything better to do right now :-D

I do believe though that the inspection and testing for both an EIC, EICR and MEIWC should be equally as stringent and thorough. If anything an EIC should be more thorough because you’re providing the initial verification of that installations safety (installation being whatever you’ve described it as in the EIC).

It’s been brought up many times but I think the wording of the legislation is quite poor, this is just another example of it IMHO. And as per the OP’s original question, the electrician shouldn’t have any trouble producing an EICR if he’s done the EIC properly, which it sounds like he has. An admin fee may be charged, but certainly no additional work should need carried out.

 

[Burtones]

Your board change has affected the entire installation. The relevant inspection and testing requirements of Chapter 64 must therefore apply to the entire installation no?

I agree in respect to the testing, if you do a board change the you would do a full test as though it was a new install and therefore would have a full schedule of test results. But in terms of schedule of inspections, can it not be applied to your board change only?

For example, cables routed in correct zones, you cannot tick for entire installation as you would never know- would you not n/a as it doesn't apply to the board change?

If a bathroom light didn't have a suitable IP rating, again you couldn't tick, would you n/a or would you be responsible for replacing it for a suitable fitting to be able to tick?

I'm still learning everyday so interested in what is the official stance on this (if there is one).

 

[loz2754]

I agree in respect to the testing, if you do a board change the you would do a full test as though it was a new install and therefore would have a full schedule of test results. But in terms of schedule of inspections, can it not be applied to your board change only?

For example, cables routed in correct zones, you cannot tick for entire installation as you would never know- would you not n/a as it doesn't apply to the board change?

If a bathroom light didn't have a suitable IP rating, again you couldn't tick, would you n/a or would you be responsible for replacing it for a suitable fitting to be able to tick?

I'm still learning everyday so interested in what is the official stance on this (if there is one).

I agree. My EIC usually has a whole bunch of N/As.

 

[dodger421]

I agree in respect to the testing, if you do a board change the you would do a full test as though it was a new install and therefore would have a full schedule of test results. But in terms of schedule of inspections, can it not be applied to your board change only?

For example, cables routed in correct zones, you cannot tick for entire installation as you would never know- would you not n/a as it doesn't apply to the board change?

If a bathroom light didn't have a suitable IP rating, again you couldn't tick, would you n/a or would you be responsible for replacing it for a suitable fitting to be able to tick?

I'm still learning everyday so interested in what is the official stance on this (if there is one).

The schedule of inspections applies to the relevant parts of the existing installation that are affected by the addition or alteration. That includes all of the final circuits connected to the board.

In the case of the non-IP rated light the final circuit doesn’t comply with BS7671. So, as discussed, you could document that on the EIC in the departures and non-compliances box. Technically I would argue you can’t energise that circuit because you can’t tick the equipment suitable for the zones box in section 10.1. You could N/A it, but again I’d argue that a final circuit you’ve altered doesn’t comply with BS7671, so why is that inspection not applicable?

Cable routing, N/A as you say, as it would be a LIM for an EICR anyway.

 

[dodger421]

I’m also just going to ask this, again just for arguments sake because I think this is actually an interesting conversation.

@westward10 mentioned in post 13 that he’d issue an EICR based on his recent EIC probably without a site visit provided the property is unoccupied.

A couple of the folks who agree with that have also argued that an EIC and an EICR are two completely separate beasts, and one isn’t a substitute for the other.

So, why would you be happy to produce an EICR from an EIC without further inspection and testing if the EIC isn’t as thorough in the first place?

 

[Flanders]

Looks like this confirms what most are saying. https://issuu.com/redactive/docs/con_aut20_full_lr__linked_/36

 

[Dartlec]

The schedule of inspections applies to the relevant parts of the existing installation that are affected by the addition or alteration. That includes all of the final circuits connected to the board.

In the case of the non-IP rated light the final circuit doesn’t comply with BS7671. So, as discussed, you could document that on the EIC in the departures and non-compliances box. Technically I would argue you can’t energise that circuit because you can’t tick the equipment suitable for the zones box in section 10.1. You could N/A it, but again I’d argue that a final circuit you’ve altered doesn’t comply with BS7671, so why is that inspection not applicable?

Cable routing, N/A as you say, as it would be a LIM for an EICR anyway.

A hypothetical Devil's Advocate could argue that cable routing would apply to the cables to the board - so the part that was actually altered- ticked to ensure they remainined in the zone from the board if buried, or were surface clipped.

I had a situation not long back where I put a new board in by the fuse head, which fed the existing board via Twin and Earth. I couldn't verify the route of the feed to that existing board, even though I was adding it to a 63A MCB in my new board.

I phoned the NICEIC helpline, who took the view that as long as I was clear in my extent of installation, I was covered to do an EIC for my new board - I was not changing that part of the install so did not need to test the existing board or all sub circuits - just verify that it was safe to re-energise by a Zs at the board.

Obviously in that case, the EIC would be nowhere near as relevant as an EICR for the property, though in theory I 'affected' every circuit. I didn't reterminate every circuit of course, which makes a difference..

 

[dodger421]

Looks like this confirms what most are saying. https://issuu.com/redactive/docs/con_aut20_full_lr__linked_/36

Yup that’s pretty clear, and I think also sums up my point about the poor wording of the legislation. It specifies an EICR, so an EICR must be provided. The relevant legislation in Scotland does not specify any type of certificate, just an electrical safety report.

I’m gonna add this though on the non-IP rated light which we all agree is a C2 - potentially dangerous. Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 1, Section 4.3;

“Circuits that are defective or non-compliant with BS7671 in a way that would result in immediate or potential danger must not be reconnected”

https://www.----------------------------/media/1203/best-practice-guide-1-issue-3.pdf

So again, I’d argue that makes it clear if you see a C1 or C2 you shouldn’t reconnect that circuit.

 

[dodger421]

That’s a great example of where an EIC for a board change and an EICR are two totally separate beasts. I couldn’t agree more, and I especially like that you checked with NICEIC, it’s conscientious and shows a willingness to a little further than most!

And a good point on the cable routing too. I think all this discussion is really showing is that there are a multitude of ways to interpret the regs as they stand, and that there’s always something to be learned by talking about it with other sparks.

 

[loz2754]

The schedule of inspections applies to the relevant parts of the existing installation that are affected by the addition or alteration. That includes all of the final circuits connected to the board.

In the case of the non-IP rated light the final circuit doesn’t comply with BS7671. So, as discussed, you could document that on the EIC in the departures and non-compliances box. Technically I would argue you can’t energise that circuit because you can’t tick the equipment suitable for the zones box in section 10.1. You could N/A it, but again I’d argue that a final circuit you’ve altered doesn’t comply with BS7671, so why is that inspection not applicable?

Cable routing, N/A as you say, as it would be a LIM for an EICR anyway.

I would argue that the outgoing circuits are not affected by the alteration (new consumer unit). Only insofar as you have disconnected and reconnected them. In the case of the non-IP rated light, the final circuit that doesn’t comply with BS7671 was not installed by me, is not covered by my EIC, and so would only deserve a comment in the appropriate box. On my EIC following a board change, the whole section for bathrooms is marked N/A. I have not altered anything in the bathroom. Of course I test the circuits to make sure they are at least as safe as they were before I did my bit. I am not (contrary to popular opinion) taking on responsibility for anything other than the consumer unit. So I don't have to ensure that everything connected to the circuits is fully compliant. Only that they are at least as compliant as they were before I dirtied my hands. I am ticking boxes to say that everything I have personally touched is up to date and fully compliant. Nothing more. Unless I were to specify otherwise on the front page of my EIC.
If I had also installed, for instance, a new fan in the bathroom, this would be listed on the front page, and, as it is in the bathroom, several tick boxes would be suitably ticked.
Only if a circuit would warrant a C2 would I be obliged to either fix the problem, or refuse to re-connect it.

The clue is the name - EIC Electrical Installation Certificate - it's purpose is to certify whatever it is I have installed.
An EICR Electrical Installation Condition Report - it's purpose is to inspect and test, in other words purposefully look at every item to ensure compliance, and issue a report on the findings - good or bad.

They are 2 different animals. Maybe related, but not the same, and not interchangeable.

Edit: Just read the Connections articles. Couldn't (and didn't LOL!) have put it better.

 

[westward10]

I’m also just going to ask this, again just for arguments sake because I think this is actually an interesting conversation.

@westward10 mentioned in post 13 that he’d issue an EICR based on his recent EIC probably without a site visit provided the property is unoccupied.

A couple of the folks who agree with that have also argued that an EIC and an EICR are two completely separate beasts, and one isn’t a substitute for the other.

So, why would you be happy to produce an EICR from an EIC without further inspection and testing if the EIC isn’t as thorough in the first place?

In normal circumstances I wouldn't but from what the OP says quite a thorough inspection was carried out and if that were me I would provide an EICR.

 

[dodger421]

A lot of this comes down to ways of interpreting the regs I guess.

When I did my 2391-52 the instructor drilled into us that a new CU meant an EIC and a full inspection and test of the final circuits. If they didn’t comply with BS7671, they had no place being reconnected until they were compliant.

His argument, and he had it with pretty much all of the older sparks there, was that by altering the origin of the circuit you’ve altered the whole thing and taken on some responsibility for it so you’d better be sure it’s compliant. It stuck with me and if I’m honest I agree with what he was saying because, ultimately, you touched it last.

If I’m changing the sole board serving a domestic premises my EIC is going to be every bit as thorough as an EICR would have been, mainly because I’m going to have effectively conducted an EICR before doing the swap to ensure the circuits comply with BS7671 before reconnection and to identify any issues (borrowed neutrals, missing main bonding, undersized tails etc). They’d be rectified before the board change or during it.

 

[dodger421]

In normal circumstances I wouldn't but from what the OP says quite a thorough inspection was carried out and if that were me I would provide an EICR.

And that’s sort of my point. When I do them (rarely admittedly) the EIC for a board change and an EICR for that property are pretty much the same thing. The same thorough inspection and test carried out for both and applied to all final circuits.

I’m not saying an EIC and EICR are always the same thing. Obviously they’re not, but when you’re changing a board they are more similar than they are not. (EDIT - or at least they should be :-D)

 

[James]

No problem, I enjoy a good discussion and never assume I'm 100% right on anything.


Clearly,, You have met my wife!!