-
Please use style selector to select BLUE AND WHITE. If you are not already on it. This notice will go once you're on the correct style.
Couple of things stand out.
61009 is not a suitable main protective device type.
Mainswitch rating is stated as 100V as well as 100A. Should be 230V
Every measured Zs is exactly the same. (0.68 ohms) This should be different for every circuit….
His C3 coding at the beginning mentions putting surge protection in, but his circuit schedule has a surge device ticked as being present.
Looks like a rush job to me….
Do you know how long they were in the property for?
61009 is not a suitable main protective device type.
Mainswitch rating is stated as 100V as well as 100A. Should be 230V
Every measured Zs is exactly the same. (0.68 ohms) This should be different for every circuit….
His C3 coding at the beginning mentions putting surge protection in, but his circuit schedule has a surge device ticked as being present.
Looks like a rush job to me….
Do you know how long they were in the property for?
This report is worthless as per the replies given above. I am suspecting this is a copy and paste job with bits left in from a previous report. ie Earth Mat for details of the Electrode when it is already stated it is TN-C-S and earthing is supplied by the distributer and Earth Electrode is N/A.
As other have said DC for the supply? 100V main Switch and it is apparently only 1 pole.
As stated above readings all the same on different circuits?
Could go on.
IR test voltage is quoted as 200 but probably should be 250.
No RCBO readings or types, assuming they are 61009.
No ring final readings.
I suspect the protective devices are 6ka not 10ka.
Has confirmed phase sequence when it is probably single phase.
No RCBO readings or types, assuming they are 61009.
No ring final readings.
I suspect the protective devices are 6ka not 10ka.
Has confirmed phase sequence when it is probably single phase.
The list of mistakes is getting longer.
I did notice the IR was “200” on some and “>200” on others, which is more likely. Pointed out by westward above
Also, out of interest, was the overall outcome marked as “SATISFACTORY”? Which is what a single C3 would bring about?
Without being on site ourselves, we can’t say how good the installation actually is, but it’s a sure thing that the report itself is a load of rubbish.
I did notice the IR was “200” on some and “>200” on others, which is more likely. Pointed out by westward above
Also, out of interest, was the overall outcome marked as “SATISFACTORY”? Which is what a single C3 would bring about?
Without being on site ourselves, we can’t say how good the installation actually is, but it’s a sure thing that the report itself is a load of rubbish.
According to the schedule circuit 3 is spare with a missing cover, Code 2?
I think we now wait for OP to return.
It’s getting to be a weekly occurrence, someone comes on here with a dodgy EICR.
It’s getting to be a weekly occurrence, someone comes on here with a dodgy EICR.
Thank you for your inputs.
SPD: 61009 is not suitable. Should it be BS60947?
Mainwitch current rating: should it be 100 A & voltage raring should it be 230 V?
Measured Zs: Is this under schedule of circuit & test results? There are different Z values there. About SPD, thank you for that. I didn't even realise it.
This electrician is NICEIC registered. Im not sure how long was the inspection.
We are very frustrated, since this is the second electrician called for inspection. The first one was NAPIT registered & apparently there were glaring faults in that report too. We have a disabled wheelchair bound child at home & we need peace of mind that electrics are safe in the house. But the certified, registered electricians are now coming up with reports as work of art, very subjective to interpretation. The earlier electrician produced the report as follows
It should be AC supply, right? This is the second report commissioned, NICEIC registered electrician.
The earlier NAPIT registered electrician produced this report: AC supply 1 phase (2 wire)
I am feeling so let down.
This is the second guy doing report. Both registered.
How do I find a competent guy?
A type 1 SPD which, if such was required on this installation, would also need a type 2 device
Thank you for your inputs. This is the second report commissioned. To be honest I'm still trying to make sense of what you all have written, grateful for the feedback. Though I am frustrated that certified electricians can be so incompetent. This is the CU pic, not sure if this can help make some sense of the report.
Also, possible C2, that's concerning! :-(
Last edited:
Yes, this report says 'Satisfactory'.
Incidentally the earlier report done in Dec 2024, also said 'Satisfactory' though the numbers/readings in the two reports are wildly different. The electrics are 15-16 years old, house built in 2009-10
Westward surmises that it could be C2 since according to the schedule circuit 3 is spare with a missing cover. That would mean potentially dangerous.
Hi everyone,
If...
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
