EICR issue. Need advice

[Concernednewbielandlord]

Hi, I'm new to being a Landlord (wasn't my plan!) Anyway I contacted a company online who arrange for electricians from around the country to perform EICR reports. The property is a small studio flat, 10 years old. (The electrician stated approx 20 yrs old on the report.) The report came back 'unsatisfactory' due to a couple of issues:
1. 6.6 Suitability of equipment for external influences for installed location in terms of IP rating. (701.512.2)
2. Need to change all spotlights (20 of them)
These were both marked as Further Investigation Required.
Yesterday I received a quote to replace all 20 downlights from the electrician via the company who have been handling the certification. I phoned the company who arranged the electrician questioning the report as I had no idea what my next step was re Further Investigation Req, They came back to me stating that the electrician had got it wrong and the two issues should have been marked as C2's and stated that the whole building had the same IP rating problem.
I'm not sure where to go from here. The flat is 10 years old and was built by Berkeley Homes. I'm assuming the IP ratings must have changed since the lights were installed?
Excuses if I'm sounding a bit naïve but I am new to this and a female (say no more!!)
I'd really appreciate some advice. Thanks

 

[DPG]

Can you post the report on here, but with names and addresses redacted.

The downlighter issue may be to do with them not being fire rated (bearing in mind it's a flat), but better if we can see the details.

 

[David Prosser]

Excuses if I'm sounding a bit naïve but I am new to this and a female (say no more!!)

Please don't say this, it's irrelevant naïve males and females who are not electricians, tradesmen or technically knowledgeable in this area are constantly being taken for a ride or ignoring good advice in equal measure. As DPG said post up the report and if possible the original electrical installation certificate if you have it. Please remove any personal information.

 

[Concernednewbielandlord]

Can you post the report on here, but with names and addresses redacted.

The downlighter issue may be to do with them not being fire rated (bearing in mind it's a flat), but better if we can see the details.

Thanks so much for your prompt response, the document is a pdf and can't be altered but I can sort it out another way. I'll do it this evening.

 

[Concernednewbielandlord]

Please don't say this, it's irrelevant naïve males and females who are not electricians, tradesmen or technically knowledgeable in this area are constantly being taken for a ride or ignoring good advice in equal measure. As DPG said post up the report and if possible the original electrical installation certificate if you have it. Please remove any personal information.

Thank you David. I've responded to DPG with the following, so I will post later on.....

Thanks so much for your prompt response, the document is a pdf and can't be altered but I can sort it out another way. I'll do it this evening.

 

[Concernednewbielandlord]

Hi guys, here is the report minus personal details. As I mentioned the electrician stated today that he made a mistake and the two issues stated as FI's should be C2's.Thanks

 

[pc1966]

Hi guys, here is the report minus personal details. As I mentioned the electrician stated today that he made a mistake and the two issues stated as FI's should be C2's.Thanks

Thanks for posting the redacted report.

I think you should ask them specifically what the reasons for the C2 rating are.

The C3 (not a reason to fail) on regulation 512.2 on environment is a general section about environmental suitability. It is hard to see how all the downlights would need changed under that regulation. There are more important ones on fire protection, but that is not the rule cited there.

The 'FI' for regulation 701.512.2 is the same idea but explicitly for bathrooms. As it seems unlikely you have anything in "zone 0" (basically in the bath) it means less than 1mm access to any electrical fittings within zones 1 or 2 (which is around 1m from any shower/bath - a search will pull up diagrams showing the zones in more detail).

It is sounding a bit dodgy to me, so I would ask them by email or similar (so you have a written explanation) of the specific issues and why they fail the regulations.

If you want some information on the whole EICR coding process, there is a free Best Practice Guide #4 from here:

https://www.----------------------------/professional-resources/best-practice-guides/

 

[littlespark]

My thoughts.

IP ratings are for protection against dust and water basically… nothing to do with fire… that’s a different regulation.
If the building has fire breaks between floors, ie concrete floors rather than then fire protected downlights aren’t needed as fire can’t spread.
It may be IP rating of downlights in a bathroom.

They haven’t ticked the boxes for operation of rcd test button.


Looks like an exercise on generating unnecessary work.

 

[pc1966]

Just to add - you do not have to use the same company who did the EICR to rectify anything.

If you have a trusted contractor then it is the simplest and easiest for them to do both, but all you need is evidence that any "unsatisfactory" issues have been resolved that can be appended to the original report. So if you don't feel happy about them you can get another sparky in to check/fix issues.

 

[Concernednewbielandlord]

Thanks for posting the redacted report.

I think you should ask them specifically what the reasons for the C2 rating are.

The C3 (not a reason to fail) on regulation 512.2 on environment is a general section about environmental suitability. It is hard to see how all the downlights would need changed under that regulation. There are more important ones on fire protection, but that is not the rule cited there.

The 'FI' for regulation 701.512.2 is the same idea but explicitly for bathrooms. As it seems unlikely you have anything in "zone 0" (basically in the bath) it means less than 1mm access to any electrical fittings within zones 1 or 2 (which is around 1m from any shower/bath - a search will pull up diagrams showing the zones in more detail).

It is sounding a bit dodgy to me, so I would ask them by email or similar (so you have a written explanation) of the specific issues and why they fail the regulations.

If you want some information on the whole EICR coding process, there is a free Best Practice Guide #4 from here:

https://www.----------------------------/professional-resources/best-practice-guides/

Thanks so much, I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out. I have taken your advice and sent an email requesting the specific issues and why they fail the regulations as you suggested. I'll let you know the response!

 

[Concernednewbielandlord]

My thoughts.

IP ratings are for protection against dust and water basically… nothing to do with fire… that’s a different regulation.
If the building has fire breaks between floors, ie concrete floors rather than then fire protected downlights aren’t needed as fire can’t spread.
It may be IP rating of downlights in a bathroom.

They haven’t ticked the boxes for operation of rcd test button.


Looks like an exercise on generating unnecessary work.

Thank you so much for your response, you're so kind. I agree with your last comment. I have sent an email requesting the specific issues and reasons for the fail as suggested by pc1966. We shall see!

 

[UNG]

I often wonder why the people producing these EICR's never proof read them before releasing them to the customer
The date of last inspection appears to be the same as this inspection
The earthing conductor is 16mm² yet the main supply conductor is 10mm²
According to the inspection schedule there is a mixed colour label on the consumer unit when the installation is 10 years old so is post the colour change

Then you get
"Electrical wiring is in unsatisfactory condition" and "Need to change all spotlights"
A little more explanation and a reason why might be a useful addition

The inspection schedule has a lot of ticks where there should be N/A's no details on the earth rod in section J but apparently it is present and good condition and then in the schedule of tests it is an N/A, I'm assuming there is no solar PV or other generation yet it is ticked

Yet another questionable EICR IMO that lacks some attention to detail on the part of the electrician carryiny out the inspection

 

[nicebutdim]

Given that they've already admitted the report contained errors, I'd be questioning precisely why they might expect payment.

 

[Dartlec]

I often wonder why the people producing these EICR's never proof read them before releasing them to the customer
The date of last inspection appears to be the same as this inspection
The earthing conductor is 16mm² yet the main supply conductor is 10mm²
According to the inspection schedule there is a mixed colour label on the consumer unit when the installation is 10 years old so is post the colour change

Then you get
"Electrical wiring is in unsatisfactory condition" and "Need to change all spotlights"
A little more explanation and a reason why might be a useful addition

The inspection schedule has a lot of ticks where there should be N/A's no details on the earth rod in section J but apparently it is present and good condition and then in the schedule of tests it is an N/A, I'm assuming there is no solar PV or other generation yet it is ticked

Yet another questionable EICR IMO that lacks some attention to detail on the part of the electrician carryiny out the inspection

Completely agree about the proof reading - I am very careful now to read mine. And I can't remember the last time I saw someone elses without at least one error, even if minor.

Some of the software doesn't help by incorrectly pre-ticking things, but that is why I always create the pdf and scan through it.

I feel that the courses covering inspection and testing could spend a LOT longer on how to complete the form, which after all is meant to be a legal document with some significant weight - and in a court of law even minor errors are going to look very bad indeed.

 

[Dartlec]

Silly errors aside, a couple of thoughts on the observations, which are what matter for the OP in terms of getting a satisfactory report.

As already mentioned, item 6.6 only applies to locations containing a bath or shower. My guess is that the downlights in there may well not be IP rated, as many new builds 10 years ago didn't seem to bother.

However, often they are (just) outside of zone 2 (2.25m height) so technically do not have a required IP rating. That may be a stupid rule, but it's what the regs state.

Interesting that they have noted the 'issue' on 6.6, not 6.7, which suggests maybe they are using their 'judgement' on suitability. However, unless they are clearly corroded, or showing signs of damage, then I'd question that.

I'd be interested in NAPIT's view on whether 'need to change all spotlights' is a suitable observation on a professional report. IMO it is anything but. The issue (if any) should be explained - how to solve it is then discussed separately.

Item 3 seems to be listed separately from any of the schedules, and has no reference to a suitable reg, so it is impossible to tell WHY they claim they all need changing.

It's also very clear that an FI was inappropriate - if they knew they needed replacing, then no Further Inspection is required!

If they are claiming replacement is essential on the basis of fire rating, then if the flat is like most modern new build flats, the ceiling is not a fire barrier - the concrete structure is designed for that purpose.

That doesn't mean that fire rated downlights might not be a bad idea. And I would bet good money that the existing downlights will be poorly installed, with lots of exposed single insulated cables, but that's not the same as saying they MUST be replaced without giving a good reason based on the regulations.

It will be interesting to see what the response to the OP is.

I don't like the idea of a report being issued with FIs and then them being decided afterwards that they should be C2s - that smacks of someone in the office looking for remedial work. I would certainly be seeking quotes from elsewhere, and requesting a corrected reissue of the report that states C2.