MWC for changing MCB's to RCBO's

[Boat_Boy]

I've just had a EICR completed and it has C2's for cables concealed, in walls at a depth less than 50mm, containing metal parts and no RCD(s) provided for additional protection.
All the circuits are for night storage heaters and come from a seperate DB on night tariff and where installed in early 2018.
There was limited testing due to no power to the DB because of the night tariff.
I have spoken to the electricians super and queried it asking would a MWC be issuied after the MCB's had been replaced with RCBO's as per the recommendations. I was quite surprised by his reply when I was told that a new EICR would be issued because it's more than one circuit.
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect.
Correct proceedure would be appreciated.

 

[Dave OCD]

The shower and cooker circuits both have very high R1 & R2 readings , they would have to be quite a length for those results to be correct ! And he's given R1 & R2 readings for all four storage heater circuits, so clearly then knows which breaker serves each point- why not just label the board instead of giving another ludicrous C2 code ?! This kind of attitude within our trade really p155es me off.

 

[Boat_Boy]

No more than 6 meters for both if that

thanks

B

 

[Doomed]

Might be cheaper to get someone decent to redo the EICR

 

[Dartlec]

Several issues already noted...

To me this looks like a (mostly) properly completed inspection followed by lack of judgement or experience leading to silly or inappropriate coding.

I assume the cooker rating is not actually a 6A but 32A or similar for a 6mm feed? R1+R2 looks a bit high for both shower and cooker in any case, but that could be down to poor connection where testing...

With the possibly exception of the outside light, which can't make much comment on without seeing it or further information, I don't think any of the other C2s are ones I would give...

Even the person from NAPIT found it hard to justify the C2 for all cables less than 50mm when confronted about it - I wonder if the inspector in this case actually verified whether any of the cables ARE less than that anyway, given the limitations...

This is where the problem with guidance comes in - NAPIT codebreakers book may suggest C2 for this, but the Best Practice Guide, which is specifically mentioned in the Government guide to PRS legislation states a clear C3, which is IMO a much more reasonable outlook.

I completely fail to see how missing labels can possibly constitute a C2 in any circumstances.

I think I'd even advise landlords to question in future when employing a inspector on which basis they plan to inspect, and consider very carefully whether they want to employ someone uses the Codebreakers book religiously.

This smacks of someone either looking for work, or going through a box ticking exercise rather than using any common sense in judging actual risk. The codes are after all supposed to be more based on risk than how closely they comply with regulations.

Though if the storage heaters were installed recently as I believe was stated it does raise the question of whether they were installed to regulations at the time...

Adding the RCBOs may have been unnecessary, but is at least an improvement to the safety of the installation. Though I'd still be interested to see how they certify them without rigging up a temporary supply to them...

 

[Boat_Boy]

Just a few quick questions

The EICR has not been signed, is this not required?
Installation is further inspected & tested: following remedial action
I thought this was a time period up to the maximum allowed per legislation?
Testing the RCD RCBO’s requires power, so they could test them anywhere to get the trip times as long as they’ve got power?

Many thanks
B

 

[Mikegh]

Just a few quick questions

The EICR has not been signed, is this not required?
Installation is further inspected & tested: following remedial action
I thought this was a time period up to the maximum allowed per legislation?
Testing the RCD RCBO’s requires power, so they could test them anywhere to get the trip times as long as they’ve got power?

Many thanksw

 

[Mikegh]

What do you mean test them anywhere ?

 

[Mikegh]

What do you mean test them anywhere ?

I'm not familiar with bs6761, don't work in uk

So in theory I suppose you can test them anywhere to determine they're operational

Actual test results would only be valid for the board in which they're installed

 

[Dartlec]

Just a few quick questions

The EICR has not been signed, is this not required?
Installation is further inspected & tested: following remedial action
I thought this was a time period up to the maximum allowed per legislation?
Testing the RCD RCBO’s requires power, so they could test them anywhere to get the trip times as long as they’ve got power?

Many thanks
B

Yes the EICR should really be signed, although with electronic documents it can get a little murkier - the main thing is that the inspector is clearly identified I would say - so the 'signature' is more the person, their position, etc - as long as that is clear then the document is likely valid - though I'd want one with a signature if I was the client.

The PRS scheme says 28 days I believe before any C2s or C1s should be addressed, although there is quite a lot of leeway at the moment given the pandemic, so no-one is necessarily enforcing that. The wider regulations give no such time limit - Some remedial work is more important than others.

Technically, the installation does not need to be reassessed - just the remedial work carried out and suitably documented (The legislation doesn't mention anything specific, just documented proof that it has been done - in most cases that will be a certificate or similar for the work carried out.)

It's usual where the original inspector has done the remedial work for them to reissue an updated EICR, although it is not necessary to do so. It usually saves confusion though, since all anyone ever looks at is the 'satisfactory' rating on the first page.

My view would be that the RCBOs should be tested in situ rather than elsewhere, as the Installation characteristics may affect their operation. Where I've done it I've rigged a temporary supply from the permanent live to the off peak consumer unit to be able to do it...

 

[Risteard]

0.3 ohms Ze does not tally with pscc of 3kA

Ze is only related to PEFC (and not even directly as PEFC will include parallel paths) - not PSCC.

 

[loz2754]

Ze is only related to PEFC (and not even directly as PEFC will include parallel paths) - not PSCC.

Oops

 

[Boat_Boy]

Thanks everyone for your advice and guidance.
I'll get back to them about it and hopefully get a positive responce.

Many thanks

B