EICR downgraded by Landlord’s Agent from C2 to C3

[westward10]

Do they own it.

 

[LauraCanning]

Do they own it.

No they don't. They just manage the properties on behalf of the landlord who has several thousand.

 

[littlespark]

Why is there a Portable Appliance test sticker on a fuse board?

Ultimately it will be the landlord that has to pay…. Unless they already pay some maintenance charge to the agents to cover repairs, and the agent makes more money if they don’t pay any out to get the repairs done.

 

[DPG]

No they don't. They just manage the properties on behalf of the landlord who has several thousand.

Why does the agent have to pay for remedial work/maintenance?

 

[littlespark]

The excrement will surely strike the spinning blades if there’s ever a fire or injury put down to the electrics.
The electricians will have a copy of the reports, which will show the problems that haven’t been rectified, and any investigation will tear through the agents handling of this.
I don’t know if it’s the agent now, the landlord or both that are at fault.
Be simpler for them to just pay the money, get the boards changed and not have to worry about trying to dodge their responsibility’s.

I’m surprised the agent doesn’t have his own “electrician” that can pass the whole lot without comment.


That would be an interesting read.

 

[sxdave]

Before I say how I think the Agent may be trying to wriggle out of item 11 being a C2 I want to say that I think the C2 items should be addressed and corrected by the agent and that as has been said previously only doing another EICR can result in a different classification.

Obviously if the RCD does not trip at all at its rated current then it is faulty and should be replaced. Do we have any test results for the RCD?

Anyway here is what I think the agent is trying to use to wriggle out of C2 classification:
First I will assume the RCD is only for additional protection. Then referring to Regulation 643.8 "Effectiveness is deemed to have been verified...disconnects within 40mS when tested at a current equal to or higher than five times its rated residual operating current". So if the RCD disconnected within 40mS at 5x its rated current it is deemed to be effective.

 

[westward10]

Before I say how I think the Agent may be trying to wriggle out of item 11 being a C2 I want to say that I think the C2 items should be addressed and corrected by the agent and that as has been said previously only doing another EICR can result in a different classification.

Obviously if the RCD does not trip at all at its rated current then it is faulty and should be replaced. Do we have any test results for the RCD?

Anyway here is what I think the agent is trying to use to wriggle out of C2 classification:
First I will assume the RCD is only for additional protection. Then referring to Regulation 643.8 "Effectiveness is deemed to have been verified...disconnects within 40mS when tested at a current equal to or higher than five times its rated residual operating current". So if the RCD disconnected within 40mS at 5x its rated current it is deemed to be effective.

You are probably correct in that assumption but unfortunately it is a Code 2 in the Report and the agent does not have the powers to change this. It could also be a 100ma rcd and the individual misread it, does not trip at ×1 on a 30ma test but it will at ×5.

 

[timhoward]

If there's sockets capable of supplying equipment outside, or a lack of supplementary bonding in a bathroom then the lack of RCD is a definite C2 for most people. If neither of these apply then this is one where (as commented above) it met the regs when installed and is safe in as much as the wiring shouldn't catch fire. I try and advise landlords that protecting people from electric shock in fault conditions requires more than the current CU offers, and modern units have a lot more to offer if anything goes wrong.

It sounds as though the other consumer unit is more recent as it apparently has an SPD that may or may not be working. I'd be a bit surprised if it was an 100ma RCD; with an old metal CU with no RCD protection next to it it is unlikely to be TT. So item 11 really needs looking at.

Do you have the full original report? You could try telling the agent you will report them to the local authority for violating PRS legislation, enclosing the report, as there is supposed to now be a 28 day clock starting to have the remedial work done.

 

[littlespark]

Although most of us agree sockets that may feed outside equipment should have RCD protection, it would only be a C3.
if you C2 that and give it as a reason, you would need to C2 every instance of requiring RCD such as all circuits within a bathroom, all circuits feeding a luminaire etc etc.

 

[UNG]

This is where the PRS legislation fails the tenant by having no clear enforcement route

 

[timhoward]

Although most of us agree sockets that may feed outside equipment should have RCD protection, it would only be a C3.

I think BPG 4 suggests a C2 for this.
The regs have required this for nearly 15 years now, much longer than the requirement for domestic lighting circuits to have rcd protection (which bpg 4 suggests is a C3) so the two things aren’t entirely equal in one sense.

 

[littlespark]

I think BPG 4 suggests a C2 for this.
The regs have required this for nearly 15 years now, much longer than the requirement for domestic lighting circuits to have rcd protection (which bpg 4 suggests is a C3) so the two things aren’t entirely equal in one sense.

“Suggests” a C2 and that’s just a best practice guide.

An EICR is not retrospective… so it doesn’t matter if it’s 5 or 15 years old regs. (Or 50 for that matter)

C3, but I would “highly” recommend improvement.

 

[baldelectrician]

I would code item 3 a C2 as you should not be able to stick your finger in the top of a consumer unit.

 

[littlespark]

I would code item 3 a C2 as you should not be able to stick your finger in the top of a consumer unit.

Good spot…. I thought it was stuffed with caulk.

Strange that the fuse cover has been cut open, as if the fuses were at one time replaced with the push in circuit breakers… but are now back to fuses?

 

[James]

Good spot…. I thought it was stuffed with caulk.

Strange that the fuse cover has been cut open, as if the fuses were at one time replaced with the push in circuit breakers… but are now back to fuses?

Pesky circuit breakers that keep tripping
may have been changed back to fuse wire holders with copper “fuse” wire links installed?