Has my UK property had its 10 year inspection performed correctly?

[mainline]

I should be able to rectify by installation of a single RCD supplying outside. There is one, but it’s 50A, when should be 40A apparently.

A 50amp RCD would be the carrying capacity, downgrading it to a 40amp would make it a pointless change.

Maybe you meant RCBO ?.

 

[westward10]

I did some research, and contacted the NICEIC, and they’ve provided some guidance and advice in the form of Best Practices Guide 4-7.1. They’ve advised;

“the requirements of BS7671 are not retrospectively applied to older installations, except in instances for lack of RCD protection for sockets that have the potential for items to be plugged in and used outside. “

“30mA RCD protection for sockets and cables in walls was introduced in BS7671:2008 (17th edition)”

“If the inspector chooses to deviate against the suggested codes that are given in the document, we would not endorse the coding decision, and it would be up to the inspector alone to justify their outcomes. “



So as far as I can tell

BS7671:2008 came into force 01-Jul-2008 for installations designed after this date. My installation certificate is dated 08-Jul-08, so deigns were done as per plans submitted in 2007 as per 16th edition.

BPG4-7.1

Pg 16 confirms RCD protection for mobile equipment are coded C2

Pg 19 confirms all other RCD points are coded C3

• No idea yet what recourse I have but I will be making a complaint to the NICEIC if my report is not put right as per guidance

I should be able to rectify by installation of a single RCD supplying outside. There is one, but it’s 50A, when should be 40A apparently.

Nothing to do with the NICEIC as they only give guidance they cannot force you to Code as they see fit. It clearly states it would be up to the inspector alone to justify their outcomes, they cannot make them change it unless they felt their Coding was too lenient.

 

[Oldskool]

I realise NECEIC cannot force an inspector to change a report. However, the NICEIC provide accreditation to electricians, which recognises that they are qualified to perform a particular activity. If an electrician is not able to follow established industry recognised guidelines laid down by the accreditation body, and arbitrarily applies his own opinion to a report that a client requests, expecting it to performed to those industry recognised standards, then that electrician should no longer be accredited by that body.
If there is no mechanism to ensure consistency of standards or remove accreditation if deviation cannot be justified, it makes a mockery of accreditation and renders it meaningless.

 

[loz2754]

I realise NECEIC cannot force an inspector to change a report. However, the NICEIC provide accreditation to electricians, which recognises that they are qualified to perform a particular activity. If an electrician is not able to follow established industry recognised guidelines laid down by the accreditation body, and arbitrarily applies his own opinion to a report that a client requests, expecting it to performed to those industry recognised standards, then that electrician should no longer be accredited by that body.
If there is no mechanism to ensure consistency of standards or remove accreditation if deviation cannot be justified, it makes a mockery of accreditation and renders it meaningless.

And there you have accurately summed up the current state of the industry, which many of us find frustrating.

 

[Oldskool]

We live in an age of ever increasing administrative burden, that is facilitated by more and more paperwork that's easy to generate from software. eg. I am now expected to read literally 89 pages of literature to obtain thatch insurance, which is all designed to trip me up and avoid paying out. It's insane, yet what can i do?

I'd suggest you write to the NICEIC with your frustrations, and examples of incidents that create those frustrations. If nobody provides feedback, they think all is rosy and continue to roll out ever more complex guidelines that many cannot, or will not interpret correctly. It's the consumer who suffers and pays more in the end, for very little value or gain, and that affects us all, when we could be spending our money on things that truly benefit us all, or paying more tax without feeling the pinch.....

putting my soapbox away now...lol

 

[UNG]

I realise NECEIC cannot force an inspector to change a report. However, the NICEIC provide accreditation to electricians, which recognises that they are qualified to perform a particular activity.

But while they maybe suitably qualified there is no assessment made by any of the accredition bodies as to whether they have sufficient experience and knowledge to carry out EICR's
The current EICR you have looks more like a NAPIT report given the colours and layout so why would the NICEIC have any interest

If an electrician is not able to follow established industry recognised guidelines laid down by the accreditation body, and arbitrarily applies his own opinion to a report that a client requests, expecting it to performed to those industry recognised standards, then that electrician should no longer be accredited by that body.

The industry guidelines are set out by the IET in BS7176 there are various other publications which offer guidance but only offer a one size fits all solution which does not necessarily fit all installations and their varying levels of delapidation and maintenance and the ever changing legislative and regulatory changes since the initial installation

If there is no mechanism to ensure consistency of standards or remove accreditation if deviation cannot be justified, it makes a mockery of accreditation and renders it meaningless.

When it comes to I&T it is difficult to guarantee any consistency with the levels of qualifications and more importantly the knowledge and experience of any given inspector, it is widely accepted that some companies are actively looking for remedial works to bolster the low initial inspection costs

Reading both the initial report and the latest EICR it does raise other questions regarding the 2014 report that is mentioned and the frequency of the EICR's given that it is a thatched property and then we are back to the competence of the inspector

With regard to the latest report
the "calculated" Zs results for Lights 1 - 5 seem odd and likely down to an R2 wander lead not being nulled when testing R2
it seems to be completely missing the test results for DB3
there is a lot of N/A's where it would have been just as easy to note DB locations or "supplied from" info

The next recommended inspection at 10 years in the latest report seems to have ignored the recommendation that thatched properties are electrically inspected every 5 years given that the previous inspection was in 2014 it does raise other questions about that report especially when the initial installation cert recommended 5 years

So I have two reports that have not flagged RCD protection as a problem until the most recent,

Are you referring to the original installation cert and the 2014 report or do you have another report

and I am now expected to pay a significant sum to correct this apparent “fail” when this is how the installation was performed and presumably signed off by a competent person, which I am obviously confused and upset about.

Given that the cost of RCBO's has fallen in recent times to install them at the time of the initial installation may have incurred a quite significant cost back then which you may have chosen not to accept. If they were installed back in 2008 they would be AC type when currently with the changes to the regs A type or sometimes B type are the required norm

Questions - Answers in blue

• Was the installation and first inspection performed correctly in 2008? IMO yes
• What documents would I need determine specification stated in the planning approval? not sure what you are asking in relation to the electrical installation
• If not, do I have any recourse with the builder or electrical company that did the initial installation in 2008? the original design met the requirements of BS7671 at the time you could ask why you were not given the option of RCBO's at additional cost but I doubt you would get very far persuing it and the time spent and costs that would be incurred would be better spent updating the installation to meet current regs
• Should the most recent inspection have been flagged as “fail” based on the information provided here? It is difficult to give a definitive answer sat at a keyboard having never seen the installation my opinion as an inspector on the ground may differ to the one you have with the current EICR with regard to the remedial works get a few quotes / opinions from a few other electricians locally

As a footnote it may be worth checking your property insurance as from past experience they can be a bit picky when it comes to thatched properties and the fire risk

 

[Oldskool]

But while they maybe suitably qualified there is no assessment made by any of the accredition bodies as to whether they have sufficient experience and knowledge to carry out EICR's
The current EICR you have looks more like a NAPIT report given the colours and layout so why would the NICEIC have any interest

The industry guidelines are set out by the IET in BS7176 there are various other publications which offer guidance but only offer a one size fits all solution which does not necessarily fit all installations and their varying levels of delapidation and maintenance and the ever changing legislative and regulatory changes since the initial installation

When it comes to I&T it is difficult to guarantee any consistency with the levels of qualifications and more importantly the knowledge and experience of any given inspector, it is widely accepted that some companies are actively looking for remedial works to bolster the low initial inspection costs

Reading both the initial report and the latest EICR it does raise other questions regarding the 2014 report that is mentioned and the frequency of the EICR's given that it is a thatched property and then we are back to the competence of the inspector

With regard to the latest report
the "calculated" Zs results for Lights 1 - 5 seem odd and likely down to an R2 wander lead not being nulled when testing R2
it seems to be completely missing the test results for DB3
there is a lot of N/A's where it would have been just as easy to note DB locations or "supplied from" info

The next recommended inspection at 10 years in the latest report seems to have ignored the recommendation that thatched properties are electrically inspected every 5 years given that the previous inspection was in 2014 it does raise other questions about that report especially when the initial installation cert recommended 5 years


Are you referring to the original installation cert and the 2014 report or do you have another report

Given that the cost of RCBO's has fallen in recent times to install them at the time of the initial installation may have incurred a quite significant cost back then which you may have chosen not to accept. If they were installed back in 2008 they would be AC type when currently with the changes to the regs A type or sometimes B type are the required norm


As a footnote it may be worth checking your property insurance as from past experience they can be a bit picky when it comes to thatched properties and the fire risk

And there you have accurately summed up the current state of the industry, which many of us find frustrating.

But while they maybe suitably qualified there is no assessment made by any of the accredition bodies as to whether they have sufficient experience and knowledge to carry out EICR's
The current EICR you have looks more like a NAPIT report given the colours and layout so why would the NICEIC have any interest

The industry guidelines are set out by the IET in BS7176 there are various other publications which offer guidance but only offer a one size fits all solution which does not necessarily fit all installations and their varying levels of delapidation and maintenance and the ever changing legislative and regulatory changes since the initial installation

When it comes to I&T it is difficult to guarantee any consistency with the levels of qualifications and more importantly the knowledge and experience of any given inspector, it is widely accepted that some companies are actively looking for remedial works to bolster the low initial inspection costs

Reading both the initial report and the latest EICR it does raise other questions regarding the 2014 report that is mentioned and the frequency of the EICR's given that it is a thatched property and then we are back to the competence of the inspector

With regard to the latest report
the "calculated" Zs results for Lights 1 - 5 seem odd and likely down to an R2 wander lead not being nulled when testing R2
it seems to be completely missing the test results for DB3
there is a lot of N/A's where it would have been just as easy to note DB locations or "supplied from" info

The next recommended inspection at 10 years in the latest report seems to have ignored the recommendation that thatched properties are electrically inspected every 5 years given that the previous inspection was in 2014 it does raise other questions about that report especially when the initial installation cert recommended 5 years


Are you referring to the original installation cert and the 2014 report or do you have another report

Given that the cost of RCBO's has fallen in recent times to install them at the time of the initial installation may have incurred a quite significant cost back then which you may have chosen not to accept. If they were installed back in 2008 they would be AC type when currently with the changes to the regs A type or sometimes B type are the required norm


As a footnote it may be worth checking your property insurance as from past experience they can be a bit picky when it comes to thatched properties and the fire risk

Hi...thanks for the comments and taking time to look at the report

"Reading both the initial report and the latest EICR it does raise other questions regarding the 2014 report that is mentioned and the frequency of the EICR's given that it is a thatched property and then we are back to the competence of the inspector".....agree, I don't think my 2014 report was done correctly but for other reasons

"The next recommended inspection at 10 years in the latest report seems to have ignored the recommendation that thatched properties are electrically inspected every 5 years given that the previous inspection was in 2014 it does raise other questions about that report especially when the initial installation cert recommended 5 years"......insurance company asks for 10 years. Not sure why the installation cert recommended 5 years. I suspect it was to generate business. Long story, but the person who did it lived in one of the properties here, and was a bit of a chancer as far as I could tell.

Bottom line, i am resigned to upgrading based on a couple of the points I don't dispute the C2 coding.

thanks again

 

[littlespark]

There was a forum thread not long ago about electrical work in thatch roofed house, maybe worth a read if you can find it.

Basically boils down to extra protection from small critters and the increased risk of fire.

 

[UNG]

Just found this on electrical installations in thatched properties

Electrical Fire Safety Considerations | Thatch Advice Centre

Some fire problems are due to electrics. So click through to the Thatch Advice Centre for ways to drastically reduce this fire risk on your thatch property.

www.thatchadvicecentre.co.uk

 

[brianmoooore]

The metal conduit bit sounds a bit OTT. I've fitted miles of plastic conduit in vermin infested farm buildings over the years, and have never seen as much as a tooth mark in it. The whole risk from electrics is a bit overstated IMHO - wiring doesn't normally lie anywhere near the roof covering in most lofts, and if a fire does start in the loft of any dwelling, the heat build up is such that it makes little difference as to what the actual roof covering is.
Last two to burn near me were both started by sparks from a chimney.

 

[UNG]

The metal conduit bit sounds a bit OTT. I've fitted miles of plastic conduit in vermin infested farm buildings over the years, and have never seen as much as a tooth mark in it.

Plastic conduit must not be as tasty as PEX pipe as I have seen loads of that where it has been chewed and in some cases chewed through to the water

 

[brianmoooore]

PEX does indeed get chewed, possibly as a result of its installation methods. You'll find plenty of PEX passing through holes in joists (blocking the vermins' way), but it would be unusual to find conduit installed like this.
I always use barrier PEX, rather than plain, in the totally unsubstantiated hope that this is more vermin resistant.

 

[UNG]

I always use barrier PEX, rather than plain, in the totally unsubstantiated hope that this is more vermin resistant.

From experience it isn't