Thoughts on recent EICR welcomed

[Sparks82]

Its original wiring probably from 60s or70s

 

[westward10]

and follow the smoke signal...! ;-)

Never going to do any harm people twinkle toe too much with IR testing. I have been 500v testing for the last thirty odd years only resorting to 250 if I get odd readings.

 

[loz2754]

In relation to your points:

1. Number of points isn't actually required - many forms tend not to include them now because there its so hard to be sure you've spotted everything in a occupied property.
2. Agree that LIM in there would be better, though if Zs has been taken on an EICR, R1&R2 isn't always essential
3. Looks like an overprinted certificate rather than a computer generated one? In which case maybe their software isn't the best - though that's a minor issue I'd say.. In an occupied property L-N insulation is almost always impossible, and L&N-E is usually the sensible one to do.
4. My guess is that 2000 is the reading on the meter for open circuit (probably >2000 actually), in which case that would mean no continuity...
5. Is there an MET with 16mm to the board, and a smaller TN-S 6mm perhaps? If not then it's clearly a typo - but not something you want to get wrong on a supposedly professional report...
6. The figure on the form may be based on the 80% rule, looking at it - so it may well still just be within the limits, though cba to look it up... It should probably be noted or commented on somewhere though
7. End to end being within 0.08 is probably within the margin of error of holding crocodile clips, so probably the least to worry about. It does suggest a reading was taken at least I guess!
8. C1 is nonsense - assuming there wasn't live parts actually accessible. C2 might be right, depending on the actual likely load - Be interested to see whether they just eyeballed it and how accurate they were - though it does show at least an attention to detail on the things that can go wrong with older boards...
9. I agree that unsleeved CPCs are at worst a C3 - in fact if I recall, the Best Practise Guide says no code for them, as it's not a danger...
10. If the grouted in fittings can be tested at a socket then I'd say C3 at worst is fine, and if not possibly a LIM if it could be confirmed that there was a continuous earth to the cooker. Basically as long as they can confirm polarity on that circuit then I'd say C3, but if it can't then FI is maybe warranted.
11. Identification of conductors is more to do with Line and Neutral being correctly identified - a bare cpc is fairly easy to identify, even without the sleeving
12. It's not unreasonable to give C3 and C2 for various combinations of lack of RCD. Generally the lack of an RCD to sockets is only a C2 when it's sockets that may supply portable equipment outside, and for any circuits in a bathroom if there is no supplementary bonding - everything else could reasonably be a C3 following the guidance.
13. That's a clear error - can happen, but again not ideal when you spot things like that on a professional report. A sign of poor proof reading, if nothing else...
14. Not entirely sure what their point is here - it may be that they are raising lack of isolation via a switch, though a 13A would clearly be wrong if the oven is 5kW as you say. That appears to be a spurious error.

It's actually not a 'bad' report compared to some, in that some work appears to have been done and some issues have been picked up. I wonder if its a case of a good tester, but a bad report writer?

In terms of what to do, I would either get the buyer to pay if they want the work done (or negotiated off the price). I certainly wouldn't put £1000 into a property when it's quite possible that the buyers will end up doing things to it themselves anyway... £1000 does sound steep in any case.

I agree with everything dartlec says.
Saved me a job of typing it all out!

 

[Sparks82]

1.I agree it’s not assentail I just think if theirs a box for it on the form it’s a bit lazy to leave it blank. Especially as it’s not a particularly big house or that cluttered with furnitures
2. I agree I don’t normally records r1&r2 reading on a EICR. Was the fact he put readings down for some some circuits but left others blank. I think you should either fill them all out or put LIM for them all
4.he might mean open circuit, but it should be blank since it’s a radial and I’m the board u can see two cables, one going through the back and another coming out the top of the board and into a socket next to the board
5.no the cables go straight into the tncs earth block with 6mm and 10mm for bonding coming out of it
8.loads not very high about 6 pendants, bathroom light, 1 or 2 lights in the kitchen and door bell transformer
10.sockets can be plugged into to confirm polarity and earthing, cooker theirs a junction box behind the oven to confirm polarity and earthing. He has zs and r1&r2 readings for cooker, zs reading for sockets and both had polarity box ticked.
which is why I would say it should c3 or lim instead of FI.
also I noticed their was a hole in the side of the cooker switch which he must of done trying to get it if the wall
12.I agree with what you said but he put c2 lack of rcds on sockets, c2 rcds in bathroom ,c3 for cables hidden in wall then c3 for overall additional rcd protection at db which I thought should be c2.
He also put c2 for rcd offering fault protection which is either wrong cause it’s tncs or because of the high zs on the sockets but then it should be noted in the codes
14.what he’s saying is the oven should be fused down to 13 amp not feed directly from the cooker circuit but it doesn’t come with pre fixed flex, is feed with 6mm cable and on top of the oven it clearly states total wattage 4990.
If that was the only fault then the installation would be failed just because of that which I think is wrong

 

[Risteard]

I admire the balls of any tester sticking 500V up an 'unknown circuit' too ?

What's the risk if live conductors are connected together?

 

[Dartlec]

What's the risk if live conductors are connected together?

On a normal circuit, negligible to none (assuming you have correctly linked them) if wiring has been correctly installed and with all appliances up to relevant standards.

But in most cases some checks have been done on the circuit first, so you are confident that the wiring is correctly identified at the CU end. Or you at least know what the circuit is and can verify that nothing unusual is installed on it.

When it's an unknown circuit I'd be much more wary - he may have done a 250V one first of course, which wouldn't be noted... Or the figures may have been all plucked from thin air...

For an unknown circuit, a L-N test would actually be useful (even if at 250V) - as it would give future inspectors some clue as whether there was a current load on the circuit, or if it was likely an obsolete item that had been terminated...

I know that the risk is probably minimal regardless, but I still wouldn't want to find out that some expensive aquarium or medical equipment suddenly stopped working just after I'd zapped it without taking due care...

 

[Dartlec]

1.I agree it’s not assentail I just think if theirs a box for it on the form it’s a bit lazy to leave it blank. Especially as it’s not a particularly big house or that cluttered with furnitures
2. I agree I don’t normally records r1&r2 reading on a EICR. Was the fact he put readings down for some some circuits but left others blank. I think you should either fill them all out or put LIM for them all
4.he might mean open circuit, but it should be blank since it’s a radial and I’m the board u can see two cables, one going through the back and another coming out the top of the board and into a socket next to the board
5.no the cables go straight into the tncs earth block with 6mm and 10mm for bonding coming out of it
8.loads not very high about 6 pendants, bathroom light, 1 or 2 lights in the kitchen and door bell transformer
10.sockets can be plugged into to confirm polarity and earthing, cooker theirs a junction box behind the oven to confirm polarity and earthing. He has zs and r1&r2 readings for cooker, zs reading for sockets and both had polarity box ticked.
which is why I would say it should c3 or lim instead of FI.
also I noticed their was a hole in the side of the cooker switch which he must of done trying to get it if the wall
12.I agree with what you said but he put c2 lack of rcds on sockets, c2 rcds in bathroom ,c3 for cables hidden in wall then c3 for overall additional rcd protection at db which I thought should be c2.
He also put c2 for rcd offering fault protection which is either wrong cause it’s tncs or because of the high zs on the sockets but then it should be noted in the codes
14.what he’s saying is the oven should be fused down to 13 amp not feed directly from the cooker circuit but it doesn’t come with pre fixed flex, is feed with 6mm cable and on top of the oven it clearly states total wattage 4990.
If that was the only fault then the installation would be failed just because of that which I think is wrong

Appears that having an > symbol included on many of the readings would have made things a bit clearer. Are they the over printed certificate type?

Not sure if 7671 says anything about blank boxes actually, though I guess they suggest no reading was taken - personally I do fill in N/A, LIM or -- on most of them just because it looks better imo.

I guess the socket circuit would be a C2 either for being radials on 30A fuse, or a RFC with no continuity - that one might well be a fair FI if it wasn't clear, though also a safe C2.

Were there single insulated cables at the cooker point? - If it was possible to test polarity and earthing from the front of the points, then I'd agree that FI seems unjustified.

The RCD for fault protection box, along with the alternative supply arrangement boxes is one of the first places to look to see if someone knows what they are actually filling out.

The pendants is another interesting one - use of unsheathed flex is down as a C3 in BPG4, whereas I've always replaced them when I've seen them before and would probably veer towards C2. Not sure what the rational behind that is where unsheathed flex would be a C2 anywhere else... (perhaps they think it's considered not accessible to touch)

Still end up with 4 or so C2s I guess, and noone ever looks past the first page anyway.

Out of Interest, was this a fully registered Approved Contractor or equivalent? The quality of reports I've seen from people who are in theory at a higher level than me has been a disappointment over the last year or so - makes me feel better about the quality of the ones I issue though at least (some of which will no doubt have mistakes in).

Not sure what the solution is, only a strong belief that the 'powers that be' aren't competent enough to find it!

 

[UNG]

I stick 500v up any circuit.

I'd like to stick 500v up some of these EICR producers in the hope they would take a bit more care and get future EICR's right

 

[Sparks82]

Yes was a couple of cable behind the oven which need cleaning up,
There a junction box behind the oven to check the polarity and earthing so I thought F1 was abit over the top. A C3 would of been more appropriate for the inaccessible cooker switch
The test sheet he used was the nic approved contractor ones so I assume so