Failed EICR Query

[timhoward]

I wouldn't say it's a bad report and it's generally a lot better than some we see on here. The issues have been found, it's a matter of the severity of them really.

Strictly speaking, to satisfy the findings, the first one is easy, as said above fit a blank.
The C2 - Cable's wouldn't be allowed to be directly buried in walls < 50mm deep without RCD protection today. How to code it in older installs is one of the things that is interpreted differently by different people. The industry best practise guide says it's a C3. A guide produced by the scheme the electrician belongs to says it's a C2. To fix that would involve adding RCD protection to all circuits. And here the fun starts.

I'd say the consumer unit is quite an old one as the breaker sizes are B5 and B30, not B6 and B32 which have been common for a long time. It's interesting there was an (early?) RCBO available for it at all, someone might be able to identify it from that alone. ( @westward10 ?)

I can't imagine being able to easily upgrade that board and add RCD protection as the parts probably won't be sitting on shelves (new), and it will become an eBay scouring job. The same applies to the failed RCBO.
So the consumer unit's age might dictate it's replacement anyway due to lack of parts.

Personally I probably wouldn't have given a C2 for the buried cables, but would have been advising replacement anyway. If thought there was a socket that could potential supply equipment outdoors I might have added a C2 for lack of working RCD protection and we arrive back at the same place.

(I'd also be suggesting a return visit in 6-12 months to measure the external earth loop impendence again as it's right on the limit for the earthing type. (0.37 ohms, limit is 0.35 ohms). If it stays static, fair enough. If it has worsened the supplier need contacting as it's their problem.)

 

[westward10]

I know Memshield 1 and Wylex QEB produced 60898 5A devices but what throws that theory is the single pole rcbo which would not have been available. If it were a Wylex standard board which it almost certainly isn't then it is possible as GE produced plug in 60898 5A, 15A and 30A devices. A picture would be ideal.

 

[danieluk84]

Thanks again.

So the NAPIT scheme explains the C2 and the consumer unit is likely very old and difficult to get parts for. A photo really would bloody help

Can anyone confirm that a "retest" is not needed should a different electrician to the one the did the EICR is used to complete the remedial work. All that is needed is proof the problems were rectified?

 

[timhoward]

Can anyone confirm that a "retest" is not needed should a different electrician to the one the did the EICR is used to complete the remedial work. All that is needed is proof the problems were rectified

Correct. Though a CU change (seemingly only viable solution) should result in an EIC certificate and the work being notified to building control.

 

[cliffed]

c1 for missing blank - access to live parts

Agree my mistake there?

 

[danieluk84]

Thank you all. Youve been a great help!

 

[danieluk84]

Me again, quick question.

The failed RCD test for the RCBO mentioned in section E and test results.
I cant see it mentioned in section K or outcomes? Is this normal?

Thank you

 

[Deleted account]

Get the board changed. The advice is sound and £600 is alot less than I would charge.

 

[MJPD29]

It's hard to tell without seeing the installation but it seems reasonable at £600. The report is much better than some I have seen.

 

[telectrix]

i jst quoted for a 22 way RCBO board, 18 RCBOs fitted. am I in the right ballpark at £900? (existing board is dual RCD 14 way with 17 circuits, grossly overloaded with 2 RFCs in a 32A (twice) and 2 6mm cooker circuits in a 32A. ). and trying to trace the conductors back to their respective cables is impossible. can't even see where the enter the CU. blue/brown spaghetti

 

[Electrics]

i jst quoted for a 22 way RCBO board, 18 RCBOs fitted. am I in the right ballpark at £900? (existing board is dual RCD 14 way with 17 circuits, grossly overloaded with 2 RFCs in a 32A (twice) and 2 6mm cooker circuits in a 32A. ). and trying to trace the conductors back to their respective cables is impossible. can't even see where the enter the CU. blue/brown spaghetti

How much for materials? Imo a board change should be expensive, i think most sparks charge too little - where some have a go heros will attempt sockets or lighting, fewer will try and tackle a board change and as such i think you should cash in on it just exactly the same as gas engineers do with boilers. They charge loads (my mate prices £1800 a day in Essex installing boilers for a basic swap out supply and fit) because they know people can't/won't tackle it themselves due to the danger factor.

Where people complain about 'high' prices for other stuff they think looks simple, imo things like board changes should make up the difference for sparks.

I think making £400-600 net for a board change is really reasonable. If people don't like it they should go get the qualifications and the equipment and do it themselves! Think they might baulk when they see just the tester can throw you for a grand, before any training or CPD is taken into account.

 

[Dartlec]

As already stated, this is a pretty good report, though as always there are a few oddities - but mostly of pedantic interest.

1. If agreed limitations include all "cables in the walls", then how does he know that there are any cables <50mm deep? I agree it's likely, but even the NAPIT guy when asked on a podcast about their approach took the view that usually limitations overrode the 'need' to give a C2 for such cables.

2. Something odd going on with his IR tester - since he gets readings of >200, >299 & >500. Yes I know that >500 is technically also >200, but why the inconsistency? I wonder if some of those were done at 250V, though the report doesn't state that.

3. He's actually ticked 5.12.1 and 5.12.2 for RCD protection for all sockets and for mobile equipment outdoors. Wonder if he did that just on visual and only discovered the RCD failed later?

4. FAIL isn't really an appropriate value for a RCD test result. Either it never tripped or it was above the required limit, but in either case a value of >300ms, >40ms or whatever is usually displayed on the meter and would be more useful in the results sheet imo. It's interesting that apparently the test button did trip it, so if appliances were still connected, then maybe removing them all and testing at the RCBO might have got a pass.

Having said all that, it may well be time for a new board in any case and it would certainly be an upgrade. Whether the price quoted is reasonable depends on whether it's for a dual RCD Screwfix special, or an all RCBO affair with SPD.

 

[timhoward]

2. Something odd going on with his IR tester - since he gets readings of >200, >299 & >500. Yes I know that >500 is technically also >200, but why the inconsistency? I wonder if some of those were done at 250V, though the report doesn't state that.

I spotted that and wondered if it was one of those scenarios where the reading steadily rises and never quite settles. Some testers keep updating the result for ever and I’ve noticed others stop after a few seconds. My Kewtech does the former and deciding what to record when it’s a high pass but ever changing can be fun.

 

[UNG]

As already stated, this is a pretty good report, though as always there are a few oddities - but mostly of pedantic interest.

I would tend to agree that it is not a bad report it just has a few anomalies it

2. Something odd going on with his IR tester - since he gets readings of >200, >299 & >500. Yes I know that >500 is technically also >200, but why the inconsistency? I wonder if some of those were done at 250V, though the report doesn't state that.

Is it the IR tester or a pre fill cert that you use a lower greater than value rather than the actual reading although it could be the IR tester but I'm a bit confused as to why the over range value changes

3. He's actually ticked 5.12.1 and 5.12.2 for RCD protection for all sockets and for mobile equipment outdoors. Wonder if he did that just on visual and only discovered the RCD failed later?

Is this possibly just another case of not proof reading the cert before you send it, it does seem to be a common problem these days

4. FAIL isn't really an appropriate value for a RCD test result. Either it never tripped or it was above the required limit, but in either case a value of >300ms, >40ms or whatever is usually displayed on the meter and would be more useful in the results sheet imo. It's interesting that apparently the test button did trip it, so if appliances were still connected, then maybe removing them all and testing at the RCBO might have got a pass.

There doesn't appear to be any standard way to fill in a cert these days and the only reason for it has to be down to training. Putting the actual figures in would better and even doing a ramp test and noting the outcome would be beneficial even using a different text colour to highlight it

Having said all that, it may well be time for a new board in any case and it would certainly be an upgrade. Whether the price quoted is reasonable depends on whether it's for a dual RCD Screwfix special, or an all RCBO affair with SPD.

Given it can be problematic getting replacement MCB's / RCD's / RCBO's for older boards this quite often is a valid case for replacement of the the CU

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I spotted that and wondered if it was one of those scenarios where the reading steadily rises and never quite settles. Some testers keep updating the result for ever and I’ve noticed others stop after a few seconds. My Kewtech does the former and deciding what to record when it’s a high pass but ever changing can be fun.

My kewtech does this too. On testing, I give it to the count of 20. Then, if it's a passable result that is still rising, I note the result at that time in the form with a '>' sign in front.