Query on recent Electrical Certification for property

[JamesMDyson]

A relative recently had an electrical certification done on a rented property. The property was build in 2005 and had previously passed 3 electrical certifications with flying colours, however this time round a number of issues arose resulting in a bill of £500, which was very surprising. Several issues, such as RCDs I can trace back to the 2018 changes to the wiring regs, however there was mention of wires terminated incorrectly and needing glanding, which seems strange given that they passed 5 years ago, unless all the previous 3 were wrong. Additionally the cooker was on a 32A circuit breaker, and the engineer said it needed a 40A breaker?? There has been no problems with the 32A breaker tripping, so why was it necessary to increase it to 40A?

I had other issues with plumbing work done by the same outfit following the installation of an electrical shower (it leaked and then leaked after he allegedly fixed the leak). Could you help explain the changes?

 

[Julie.]

Could you post the report with the addresses, names and other identifying details removed, without seeing what was actually said we can't really comment accurately

 

[brianmoooore]

What issues were coded C1 and C2 on the EICR, and what were coded C3. C3 is 'improvement recommended" and means just that - recommended but not required.
The wiring regs are not retrospective. If the installation was installed correctly in 2005, any alterations and additions made since then done to the regs at the time they were made and nothing has deteriorated, then it is satisfactory for continued use, but that does not mean that the inspector cannot make strong recommendations for some things to be upgraded.

 

[JamesMDyson]

Could you post the report with the addresses, names and other identifying details removed, without seeing what was actually said we can't really comment accurately

Hopefully I've omitted all the identifying features, please tell me if I haven't.

 

[Uplight99]

Hopefully I've omitted all the identifying features, please tell me if I haven't.

View attachment 108424
View attachment 108425
View attachment 108426
View attachment 108429

View attachment 108428
View attachment 108430
View attachment 108431
View attachment 108432

32A on a 10mm is completely fine, no idea why he’s put that down as a C2.

RCD trip time can be up to 300ms, so the 40ms trip time is fine, again not sure why he’s put that down as a C2.

If the SWA hasn’t been glanded the yes this warrants a C2 and will have to be done.

Something that isn’t making sense is that he’s saying there’s a dead short on L-E on your sockets which would mean that your breaker would be going bang every time it’s turned on, which I’m guessing it doesn’t because you would know about this.

This guy either isn’t very experienced with testing or he’s trying to milk money out of you. The only 2 things on there that have to be done are the gland for the SWA and the alleged socket fault, all the others are only C3s and therefore only recommendations. The RCD wouldn’t even be a C3 because it trips well within the maximum time of 300ms so that shouldn’t even be on there

 

[Julie.]

OK, from the report there looks to be some valid items, others I would disagree with.

1 - I would really need a photo of the garage board to comment, but even if it isn't glanded properly, providing there is proper connectivity and it achives the level of ingress protection, that would look like an improvement recommend rather than a C2
2 - this aligns with the test report figures, so firstly it looks most likely that a socket outlet has been changed, or whatever and the earth connections haven't been made correctly, this would be a valid unsatisfactory on the report, secondly the low IR reading is difficult to understand, he gives a value of 2.1 somethings! If those somethings are Meg ohm then actually it's technically a pass. If they are k ohms, that's a genuine issue, wouldn't trip the rcd, but is a valid C2, if ohms (which he implies), the rcd would trip all the time.
3 - C3 seems appropriate
4 - what!? C3 at best, if it isn't a problem in practice, then it isn't a problem for the inspection
5 - at 1x 300ms is acceptable, and at 5x 40ms is OK- the rcd appears to meet the standard.


So overall, yes you look to have a valid unsatisfactory with the report, but that's really only the high Zs (sockets at 2.3 ohm) plus potentially the low IR on sockets.

Photos needed to be sure on item 1 but everything else looks like misunderstandings

 

[JamesMDyson]

I have photos of the garage cable (item 1) in the report but very small.

 

[brianmoooore]

`There is no requirement for a SWA cable to be glanded and earthed at both ends, unless the armour is being used as the earth conductor. If your cable is glanded and earthed at the source end, and is either a 3C cable, with the third core used as the earth conductor, or the garage uses a TT earthing system, then it is fine.
If the garage does use TT earthing, then there must NOT be an (exposed) gland at that end.

 

[plugsandsparks]

Some of his readings dont make sense, his Zs for the garage sockets is lower than the ZS of the board when you look at the ZS reading for DB1 garage, think a little in-experience here in the general report.

 

[westward10]

He has failed to mention the very high r2 for the ring final.
It should also be noted BS7671 does not give minimum values of insulation resistance values for an EICR so 2.1 Meg ohm may not even warrant a mention.

 

[Julie.]

He has failed to mention the very high r2 for the ring final.
It should also be noted BS7671 does not give minimum values of insulation resistance values for an EICR so 2.1 Meg ohm may not even warrant a mention.

He does it's squirreled away in item 2 - Zs is to (sic) high

 

[JamesMDyson]

Thank you all so much for your input. Much appreciated.

 

[JamesMDyson]

5 - at 1x 300ms is acceptable, and at 5x 40ms is OK- the rcd appears to meet the standard.

Where is that time stated on the report?

EDIT: It's okay I see it now.

This is the relevant part of the wiring regs isn't it?

https://electrical.------.org/wirin...nges-to-rcd-testing-in-bs-76712018plusa22022/

Huh, link won't post.



So the test results show 54ms at 1x and 23ms at 5x, which as you say are both well within the 300ms (1x) and 40ms (5x) in BS7671.

Thanks

 

[Julie.]

Yes, exactly as you found.

Although actually since amendment 2 there is actually no requirement to do these tests as we used to, but it passes in any case

 

[JamesMDyson]

Yes, exactly as you found.

Although actually since amendment 2 there is actually no requirement to do these tests as we used to, but it passes in any case

The test was done 10/08/2021 according to the report, so pre-Amendment 2 (28/03/2022). Although the date doesn't really make sense either because the invoice for the work wasn't charged to the owner until Feb 2022, unless maybe the work was postponed due to lockdown following the initial test?? The reason we're looking at it now is because it's very much only the tip of a larger iceberg.