EICR on a Flood Damaged Property

[SYKRAPS]

Good Morning All,

I will start by stating that the property concerned is a restaurant where I have now isolated the original electrical systems because of water ingress.

Being from Yorkshire we have been hit by flooding yet again recently and I have been asked to perform an EICR on a flooded property, to which I have answered "after some testing" that it will have to be a visual inspection for now as the building is still saturated and IR readings are in the main dead shorts because of the water ingress still present. Insurers being insurers want a concise report and are wanting to penny pinch and pass some of the cost of the peril onto the policy holder for non related items (fair enough I suppose for non related items) but they are directly effected by the water.

There are a couple of issues that I would appreciate a 2nd.....3rd or 4th opinion on from my fellow pros with regard as to how it can be worded to the insurers about the issues with no accurate test results and they are as follows.

1. Main area lighting is controled/switched by the 6a mcb's in the consumer unit, I don't like this but I suppose it is single pole switching in essence but I would prefer to rectify the issue.
2. The lighting circuit listed above also has some EM fittings which is obviously wrong and very poor installation as they will not be charging whilst the 6a mcb is isolated overnight, so to recify his I will be performing a modification to the circuit (does this have an impact on item 1 above?).
3. Lack of RCD protection on this installation that was installed to the 16th edition of BS7671, my concern here is that I will be isolating and improving some cabling but the insurer does nor want to foot a CU upgrade, but yet again this is required because of the water ingress that some remedial work is required.
4. Not 100% sure on this one but the lighting itself is 12v spots that are not fire rated, now I know that if there is a bedroom above they should "now" be fire rated so is this the case if there is an office unit above the lighting? The lighting requires changing because of water pitting but the insurer wants to replace with non fire rated fittings and I am not happy to do so.
5. Non accessible JB's on a 16th edition installation "why on earth does anyone ever do this?"

Your input on how I can word this to the insurer would be greatly appreciated guys.

Regards SYKRAPS.

PS I will not be able to answer any questions that you may have until later in the day as I have to go to now worst luck.

 

[snowhead]

1 and 2. The Em light situation;

The insurers will want the EM to comply, not being on charge overnight doesn't comply, that's how it was installed, nothing to do with the flood, the customer will have to pay for the switch / circuit alteration.

3. It's commercial.

4. It's commercial, people don't normally sleep in offices, but make a note that the insures wanted non fire,incase the place ever catches fire.

5. If you are replacing / altering circuits with J.B's, then remove them otherwise just note?

That's just my view.
(O & E excepted)

 

[SYKRAPS]

Thanks for the quick response snowhead.

I should maybe note that the manufacture of the building is like a standard domestc installation with dry lined walls and no cables are 50mm or deeper behind the plaster work and that the lack of RCD is on every circuit.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Good Morning All,

I will start by stating that the property concerned is a restaurant where I have now isolated the original electrical systems because of water ingress.

Being from Yorkshire we have been hit by flooding yet again recently and I have been asked to perform an EICR on a flooded property, to which I have answered "after some testing" that it will have to be a visual inspection for now as the building is still saturated and IR readings are in the main dead shorts because of the water ingress still present. Insurers being insurers want a concise report and are wanting to penny pinch and pass some of the cost of the peril onto the policy holder for non related items (fair enough I suppose for non related items) but they are directly effected by the water.

There are a couple of issues that I would appreciate a 2nd.....3rd or 4th opinion on from my fellow pros with regard as to how it can be worded to the insurers about the issues with no accurate test results and they are as follows.

1. Main area lighting is controled/switched by the 6a mcb's in the consumer unit, I don't like this but I suppose it is single pole switching in essence but I would prefer to rectify the issue.
2. The lighting circuit listed above also has some EM fittings which is obviously wrong and very poor installation as they will not be charging whilst the 6a mcb is isolated overnight, so to recify his I will be performing a modification to the circuit (does this have an impact on item 1 above?).
3. Lack of RCD protection on this installation that was installed to the 16th edition of BS7671, my concern here is that I will be isolating and improving some cabling but the insurer does nor want to foot a CU upgrade, but yet again this is required because of the water ingress that some remedial work is required.
4. Not 100% sure on this one but the lighting itself is 12v spots that are not fire rated, now I know that if there is a bedroom above they should "now" be fire rated so is this the case if there is an office unit above the lighting? The lighting requires changing because of water pitting but the insurer wants to replace with non fire rated fittings and I am not happy to do so.
5. Non accessible JB's on a 16th edition installation "why on earth does anyone ever do this?"

Your input on how I can word this to the insurer would be greatly appreciated guys.

Regards SYKRAPS.

PS I will not be able to answer any questions that you may have until later in the day as I have to go to now worst luck.

this it typical insurance company behaviour.....they are saying here its `like for like`......but if the regs require fire rated downlights.....then thats what it should be.....
but dont forget an EICR is retrospective...

 

[Paul.M]

Good Morning All,



1. Main area lighting is controled/switched by the 6a mcb's in the consumer unit, I don't like this but I suppose it is single pole switching in essence but I would prefer to rectify the issue. A MCB is ok for functional switching and in this case it has nothing to do with water damage so leave it as it is, ins comp wont pay for that.


2. The lighting circuit listed above also has some EM fittings which is obviously wrong and very poor installation as they will not be charging whilst the 6a mcb is isolated overnight, so to recify his I will be performing a modification to the circuit (does this have an impact on item 1 above?). Two parts to this, first of all it does not have anything to do with the ins company so they wont be bothered nor will they pay for it. Secondly it needs taking off the 6A MCB lighting circuit as you say, thats down to the owner to pay you direct to install the EM circuit correctly.


3. Lack of RCD protection on this installation that was installed to the 16th edition of BS7671, my concern here is that I will be isolating and improving some cabling but the insurer does nor want to foot a CU upgrade, but yet again this is required because of the water ingress that some remedial work is required. As above it is a commercial property and only if appliencs require RCD protection it then should be installed, this could be via an RCD socket.


4. Not 100% sure on this one but the lighting itself is 12v spots that are not fire rated, now I know that if there is a bedroom above they should "now" be fire rated so is this the case if there is an office unit above the lighting? The lighting requires changing because of water pitting but the insurer wants to replace with non fire rated fittings and I am not happy to do so. Is it all one dwelling? Commercial below and a separate dwelling above? If so fire rated fittings are needed. (I would fit them any way, dont cost much more)

5. Non accessible JB's on a 16th edition installation "why on earth does anyone ever do this?" Because it was acceptable at the time of installation.

The insurance company is only interested in what has been damaged by the flood and not what was wrong before the flood. Do 2 EICR reports, one for each and put every thing right.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[UNG]

This is where the loss adjuster will earn his crust IMO

Your problem is one that is coming more prevalent where installations comply with an earlier edition of the regs and need to updating to enable reinstatement of the existing accessories and equipment

or the other where they never complied in the first place and the insurance will only pay for what exists and not the work to bring it up to standard

It's all down to what the loss adjuster will accept and what he knocks back and then it is down to the owner to pick up the tab on the rest.

If the installation is a total loss, who knows how a previously water logged MCB functions when it dries out or any accessory for that matter then there may be some margin for bringing it up to standard

 

[snowhead]

The O.P shouldn't be taking instruction or negotiating with the Insurance co.

They want to know the state of the building now to be able to act on the situation now.

Carry out the EICR, and if due to water damage the readings at the time of test indicate rewiring of some cicuits is needed (which they would do)then that's what goes in the report.

Items like the E.m lights just need noting, it's not the Insurers problem same as any other non compliance.
If the spots weren't fire rated, the insurers don't have to pay for new fire rated, unless non fire rated are not available.

They may pay the cost on non rated but insist the owner pays the difference.

 

[SYKRAPS]

Thank you all for your input it is much appreciated, my appologies for not responding to your comments as I have just returned from work.

I should have said in the OP that it is actually the loss adjusters I was dealing with not the insurance company I know that this makes a hell of a difference.

After about 6 e-mails regarding the property I have now managed to convince them that when plaster and building material is removed due to flooding to reveal non compliences and also the builders damaging cables that this is a direct impact from the insurance peril, so they have agreed to include an amount of 2K as a PC sum to cover electrical upgrades and repairs "although this is still not enough IMO" and that a full EICR can be carried out ater drying.

This will inevitably lead to the loss adjusters passing some of the cost to the Policy Holder above and beyond the 2K, but either way this will cover my charges and they now understand.

Thanks again to all for the help and advice.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Thank you all for your input it is much appreciated, my appologies for not responding to your comments as I have just returned from work.

I should have said in the OP that it is actually the loss adjusters I was dealing with not the insurance company I know that this makes a hell of a difference.

After about 6 e-mails regarding the property I have now managed to convince them that when plaster and building material is removed due to flooding to reveal non compliences and also the builders damaging cables that this is a direct impact from the insurance peril, so they have agreed to include an amount of 2K as a PC sum to cover electrical upgrades and repairs "although this is still not enough IMO" and that a full EICR can be carried out ater drying.

This will inevitably lead to the loss adjusters passing some of the cost to the Policy Holder above and beyond the 2K, but either way this will cover my charges and they now understand.

Thanks again to all for the help and advice.

watch out for the connector block `joints` quickly plastered over in the walls as well.....courtesy of `barry bathroom fitter`....:cowboy:

 

[Guest55]

as snowheads states , the ins. co. is only interested in the damage caused by flood.
thats it , nothing else.
anything else you submit will be scrubbed / omitted.