periodic inspection report no access to the consumer unit

[sparky928]

Hi Guys,

Got to do a periodic inspection report, there two consumer units one i cant access due to kitchen units in the way i can see the breakers but i wont be able to take the cover off and the other consumer is fine to get to.

Any Ideas what to do for the consumer unit i cant get to? or what to write on the report?

Thanks

 

[westward10]

He has no choice but to enter a Limitation, with a further recommendation access is enabled so a full inspection/test can be carried out.

 

[David M]

I would instantly think C2 as well but then I thought what would I say if I was asked to justify that with regards to it being 'potentially dangerous'?
The CU and all circuits may be in excellent condition. Perhaps a 'limitation' with a strong recommendation it is made accessible for testing?
Or perhaps a C2 because it is potentially dangerous as electrical installations should be tested every 10 years and this one can not be?

It would also so be classed as a maintainable accessory, which means access is required for maintenances purposes, i.e checking connections etc..

 

[Rpa07]

You'd have to gain access to it to ascertain whether the CU has the MF stamp on the inside - after all it is inaccessible so needs to be maintenance free! (Where's the emoji for tongue in cheek!)

 

[ruston]

You'd have to gain access to it to ascertain whether the CU has the MF stamp on the inside - after all it is inaccessible so needs to be maintenance free! (Where's the emoji for tongue in cheek!)

Actually you make a valid point.

 

[bigspark17]

How on earth can you test the install if the cu is inaccessible? You cant even do basic testing or check terminal tightness, visual, polarity, main isolation. It isnt FI its a unstaisfacory, and if any sparks agreed in the lims not too take cover off cu then he needs reporting to his scheme imo. C2 no doubt!

 

[westward10]

How on earth can you test the install if the cu is inaccessible? You cant even do basic testing or check terminal tightness, visual, polarity, main isolation. It isnt FI its a unstaisfacory, and if any sparks agreed in the lims not too take cover off cu then he needs reporting to his scheme imo. C2 no doubt!

No one said Code FI, if it is discussed with the client put it down as a Limitation. How can you report anybody been in the same boat myself.

 

[Silly Sausage]

I would instantly think C2 as well but then I thought what would I say if I was asked to justify that with regards to it being 'potentially dangerous'?
The CU and all circuits may be in excellent condition. Perhaps a 'limitation' with a strong recommendation it is made accessible for testing?

I would go with C2 as well. With all the hyperbole over the last few years about CU sourced fires, if you can't even Visual a CU ...

 

[unconditional]

How on earth can you test the install if the cu is inaccessible? You cant even do basic testing or check terminal tightness, visual, polarity, main isolation. It isnt FI its a unstaisfacory, and if any sparks agreed in the lims not too take cover off cu then he needs reporting to his scheme imo. C2 no doubt!

You can carry out every test you can on each circuit within your limited remit and then largely invalidate the cert via limitations. I did an EICR on an installation with no power supply once... Up to the client, if I'd turned up for an EICR and they weren't happy for a little jigsaw joy I still want to get paid. And anyway, even if the client refuses to accommodate access for full & proper testing then carrying out what testing you can has some merit.

Anyway not trying hard enough, had a lovely one a couple of years ago I should have photo'd, a row of holes in the wood to pop your finger in to reset the pop-out wylex breakers and a nice 1"x 3" slot for the meter reader, lovely bit of dress up.