RCD x1 on fuseboard

[Claire]

I'm a homeowner with no electrical skills. BG electrician came to repair something & said my fuse board is not to standard as it only has one RCD. The property was built in 1874 and most of the current systems were put in place in the 1980s. Lived here 24 years & the tripping mechanism works brilliantly. In my basic understanding you can't have two RCDs on one circuit & he was using modern regulations and applying them to my old property, which can't be done retrospectively, am I right? I am trying to sell, will this be an issue on survey & if so, what will it cost to correct. Thanks

 

[Midwest]

Think we are at cross purposes.

There's Professional Indemnity Insurance for trades persons etc, to provide them with cover should it be alleged to have provided inadequate advice or service.

And there's Indemnity Insurance a type of protection, purchased during housing transactions. It is a one-off payment for a policy that then lasts forever. It is used to offer protection if there is a potential problem with the property that could result in local council action or legal problems in the future.

Note, the later does not remedy the insured defect.

 

[multimick]

Think we are at cross purposes.

There's Professional Indemnity Insurance for trades persons etc, to provide them with cover should it be alleged to have provided inadequate advice or service.

And there's Indemnity Insurance a type of protection, purchased during housing transactions. It is a one-off payment for a policy that then lasts forever. It is used to offer protection if there is a potential problem with the property that could result in local council action or legal problems in the future.

Note, the later does not remedy the insured defect.

Thanks Midwest that's better

 

[pirate]

As I have said before, an indemnity policy purchased during a house sale to "cover" some defect is increasingly popular, especially amongst lazy lawyers. The policy does not cure the defect, it only provides monetary compensation in the event of a subsequent problem.
Historically they were used to cover problems with the title to the property, whereby some 3rd party might challenge the title. Thereafter the insurance companies offered them to cover situations where alterations had been done without Building Warrant or other consents. In the main, they are pretty useless. However, as above, the purchaser/his solicitor is under no obligation to accept such a policy, so it follows that even if the current purchaser does go ahead, a subsequent purchaser from him may not. Thus, they are a last resort, in cases where the risk is minuscule. A good and proper title needs no fortification.

Many lawyers are using these policies as a simple way to make problems go away. That is poor practice. Also, if a lender is involved, they have to be consulted over an indemnity policy, and often they will fire it back to the lawyer and say they will follow his advice. Neatly, that means that the lawyer himself, as well as the insurer, is liable in a claim if the lender loses out...and that is where the lawyer's Professional Indemnity insurance kicks in.
As the condition of an electrical installation is not (yet) a factor in conveyancing transactions here in Scotland, the (very) few insurers who offer indemnity for house purchase matters have not yet had to concoct another load of convoluted drivel to make it look as if they are covering the "defect"even if in reality they are not. This is a good thing. These policies were originally known as Defective Title Indemnity policies, and that is what they should remain-policies that offer some financial compensation for a defect in title to the property, not for some dodgy wiring. Title defects are usually cured by passage of time, dodgy wiring is not.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Thanks for the clarification chaps, it's no wonder I was at cross purposes, MultiMick replied to my post on the EICR and this indemnity is nothing to do with the electrical installation or the electrician.

I think the crux of any purchasing Indemnity is the words "third party" the seller being the first party and the buyer being the second party, the third party is someone or an organisation outside the selling and buying process.

 

[radiohead]

As my PI covers 500k normally. With all these things it's a worse case scenario thinking but at some point somebody will come unstuck with these poor EICRs.

I said this in a previous life on this forum and I'll say it again as I honestly believe people completely misunderstand the extent of what an EICR is capable of highlighting.
On all but very small installations 100% inspection is not realistic and anyone who claims 100% is lying or deluded. Removing hundreds of points and accessories would be excessively time consuming and impose an unacceptable cost burden on the client. It would also cause unacceptable damage to surface finishes and almost certainly introduce faults that were not previously present. The more disturbance the higher the risk. For that reason it is recommended that a percentage of points are removed for inspection, typically around 25% would be considered adequate, with the sample being increased if defects are identified. If no or insignificant defects are observed then 25% sampling will likely be deemed adequate, which also means 75% of points will not be properly inspected. If a potentially dangerous defect is present in that 75% then it may not be identified.
If following such an EICR a fire or electrocution results from that defect then everyone on this forum will be talking about dodgy EICR's and cowboy electricians, when in fact that scenario could befall ANY competent electrician on this forum.
Think on.

 

[pc1966]

I always though the sample inspection was more about determining the general quality of the original work than anything else. As you say doing 100% opening for inspection is utterly impractical.

But inspecting the outside appearance of near-100% is feasible and very valuable in case of damaged/burned examples, even if some are going to be behind washing machines, etc, and difficult to include (but ironically probably more important given the high load).

Similarly if you had doubts then I guess PFC/PSSC on each socket could be measured at a tolerable cost and risk, and that might show up poor connections (or more likely dodgy sockets), as a ring loop R check can also point to such things.