Failed EICR Query

[danieluk84]

Hello all, hoping for a little advice from you kind people

My friend has been told to change consumer unit by the people who did the EICR, at a cost of £600, which i think sounds excessive. It seems to only need a new RCBO and blanking plate(s) fitted? I guess a photo of the existing unit might be beneficial.

What are your thoughts? Also, is the C2 for the failed RCBO?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mikegh]

Looks like there's more than 1 RCD needed and other issues with the CU

600 seems excessive just for a CU change although there will be additional testing required afterwards

 

[cliffed]

What’s the DB @ the moment…also if it’s installed @ an earlier edition then no Rcd protection would be a C3…definitely a C2 for missing blank which would be an easy fix.

 

[bill01803]

c1 for missing blank - access to live parts

 

[telectrix]

item 1 should be C2. item 4 a C3.

 

[telectrix]

i class the missing blank as a C2 as there's no immediate danger. potential as in one has to insert one's fingerand then manage to touch a live part. with modern MCBs that's very unlikely as the live terminals are recessed in the housing.

i would have fitted a blank rather than take twice as long to put the comment on the report.

 

[littlespark]

C1 for missing blank if there’s exposed live busbar
same situation as bare live cables exposed… just as dangerous.

a C2 is something like an earth not connected. Everything works fine until a second fault causes exposed metal to go live…no ADS… then becomes a C1

 

[richy3333]

Missing blank is a C1 any day of the week.
Item 4 is a C3

£600 for a board change is not unreasonable but may be unnecessary in this instance, but who knows as we cant see the whole report?

 

[telectrix]

Missing blank is a C1 any day of the week.
Item 4 is a C3

£600 for a board change is not unreasonable but may be unnecessary in this instance, but who knows as we cant see the whole report?

so how would you code a similar size hole in the top of the CU, compromising the IP4X? a finger could still getin but unless said finger is 7" (ooh, matron), can't actually reach a live part.C2 in my book.

 

[richy3333]

C1 or C2 depending on my engineering judgement, but a missing blank giving rise to immediate access to live parts is a C1 IMHO.

Other than that I cant comment upon your theoretical scenario and it would be futile to do so ?

 

[telectrix]

as i said in a previous post, i'd just bung a blank in, maybe with a spot of superglue. far less trouble and time than coding it.

 

[brianmoooore]

as i said in a previous post, i'd just bung a blank in, maybe with a spot of superglue. far less trouble and time than coding it.

So would I, but in theory, at least, the missing blank should attract a C1, since you are testing and reporting on the installation as is.
A similar thing can occur when you submit your car for an MOT test. Any reasonable tester will stick a litre or two of water into the washer bottle if it's empty, or replace a failed compulsory lamp (assuming easy access), if these are the only things it will fail on, but they're not supposed to.

 

[telectrix]

my method has always been that if it's broke, fix it. hate the current fad for if it's broke write it on paper for some suit to ignore the problem.

 

[timhoward]

A photo of the unit and more of the report would be handy. Whether it's fixable rather than requiring replaceable depends on the brand and age of the consumer unit.
I note in the summary there's an RCBO failing it's test which I'm assuming is coded on a continuation sheet.

The C2 appears to relate to lighting; the sparks was a NAPIT member and the tester is at liberty to follow their codebreakers book rather than the industry standard best practise guide 4 which would have it as a C3.

(Just noticed - academic interest only - ever so slightly high Ze for a TNCS on that report.)

 

[danieluk84]

Thank you guys

Its both helpful and interesting reading all your comments, and i am grateful. I should have posted more of the EICR, I've attached it below.

If it were my home id troubleshoot it myself, unfortunately i don't have access to the house. Hopefully i can get hold of a photo of the unit.
The price for a change of consumer unit i didn't have issue with, I'm just querying whether or not it is strictly necessary, or are they are creating work where it may not be needed. It seems to be the norm these days, across many professions.
I know ideally, all circuits should be protected, and if that involves changing the unit, then it should be recommended to the customer, but that's not how it was communicated to her.
However, maybe there is something in this report that indicates that actually it is necessary in this case and that's why I posted here to read the various opinions of experienced people so that she could make an informed decision. Access to the advice of professionals here in invaluable in situations like this.

Here's the rest of the report including the original jpeg from the original post.

Once again thank you.