Unsatisfactory EICR with C2 and FI, advise needed

[wackybelle]

And exactly what is he doing for this £300 of remedial work, do you have a breakdown

No breakdown. just say "The cost for the remedial work is £300. Following the remedial work complete a satisfactory report will be issued."

I can ask him to breakdown the £300, but I don't really want him to do the remedial work after a poor EICR and suspected fishing for work.

 

[brianmoooore]

Definitely employ a different and trustworthy electrician for the remedials (if any are actually needed, beyond tightening the odd screw).

 

[baldelectrician]

The lack of bonding clamps can be negated by a wander lead test.

We test the continuity to the pipe work if we cannot access a bond clamp, this is noted and listed as a C3 at worst

Have you had a new consumer unit installed? The electricain has listed the SPD as satisfactory (item 4.20)

I would ask him to clarify how he will repair the C2 item 5.2 in the schedule

Section 6.1 seems interesting- he notes an RCD on the schedule of test results (I am assuming a dual RCD board) but then notes there is not RCD protection on the bathroom / shower room

Item 3.6 - he is contradicting himself- he notes the size of the bond cables as 10mm (bottom of page 7) and then gives a C2 to the same item in item 3.6 - you cannot confirm a cable size and then fail the same item.

 

[Julie.]

The lack of bonding clamps can be negated by a wander lead test.

We test the continuity to the pipe work if we cannot access a bond clamp, this is noted and listed as a C3 at worst

Have you had a new consumer unit installed? The electricain has listed the SPD as satisfactory (item 4.20)

I would ask him to clarify how he will repair the C2 item 5.2 in the schedule

Section 6.1 seems interesting- he notes an RCD on the schedule of test results (I am assuming a dual RCD board) but then notes there is not RCD protection on the bathroom / shower room

Item 3.6 - he is contradicting himself- he notes the size of the bond cables as 10mm (bottom of page 7) and then gives a C2 to the same item in item 3.6 - you cannot confirm a cable size and then fail the same item.

He has marked each circuit as having an rcbo bs60898, but has appeared only to have tested two of them.

So i wouldn't be surprised if there were two rcbo on socket circuits , and all the rest are mcb and he hasn't filled the schedule correctly.

Op - could you post a photo of the consumer unit - lift the flap so we can make out the actual protection devices?

 

[UNG]

He has marked each circuit as having an rcbo bs60898, but has appeared only to have tested two of them.

So i wouldn't be surprised if there were two rcbo on socket circuits , and all the rest are mcb and he hasn't filled the schedule correctly.

Op - could you post a photo of the consumer unit - lift the flap so we can make out the actual protection devices?

BS 60898 is an MCB, BS 61009 would be an RCBO

The RCD test button seems to be functional on all circuits except the upstairs sockets so is it a dual RCD board

 

[DefyG]

High R1+R2 would be a C2, but doesn't appear to be clear from the results.

Its possible the Zs result could still be satisfactory for the circuit protective device used so I would probably give it a C3 or FI but we all have different views on these things.

 

[Dartlec]

Just to add a couple of minor but potentially significant things on the EICR report itself.

It's been listed as further inspection required after 3 years or change of tenant. Assuming this report is to confirm suitability for renting, then a 5 year period is required. For a property of the age stated, I can't see any reason why the report wasn't given for 5 years, so it may be worth chasing that up, otherwise you would in theory have to do another one in 3 years at additional cost.

There are also a couple of niggling errors on Page 3, which don't really impact the safety, but suggest either inexperience or sloppy filling out of forms.

Specifically, U in nature of supply characteristics should be N/A, not 240 - for a single phase supply.

If the main switch is actually a 60947-3 as listed, then it does not have a fuse/device rating, so that should be N/A.

The certificate also seems to suggest that there is either no room containing a bath or shower, or no electrical circuits in it, since he has put N/A for additional protection by RCD (6.1)!

My guess is that if this is a dual RCD board, that should be ticked, so not a significant issue, but one that stands out to anyone experienced looking at the form.

Re bonding, there are some different views on how to approach it, but I'd be surprised (but not astonished) if a new build from 2011 wasn't bonded if necessary (unless things have been moved since).

If it's not plastic pipework coming in, then bonding can often be verified by wander lead testing, though to be fair if the end of the bonding cable isn't accessible it isn't always possible to rule out earthing via a boiler manifold or similar, so there is an argument that C2 might be appropriate where the reading is inconclusive.

Having mentioned boiler - he mentions that bonding required to "gas and water pipes at boiler", which is a little confusing.

If the services enter in metallic pipes then they do need to be bonded, but at the appropriate isolation points (or as near as practicable). I guess they could both be by the boiler.

I wonder if he is talking about cross bonding at the boiler, which some plumbers like to do but is not necessary.

Either way I can't really see how £300 was reached as a price for remedials, so I would definitely be getting other quotes for that. I would also ask him to reissue the certificate with a 5 year life, or give a good reason why not.

 

[loz2754]

Its possible the Zs result could still be satisfactory for the circuit protective device used so I would probably give it a C3 or FI but we all have different views on these things.

I agree with the C3, but FI is not appropriate in my opinion, because a faulty condition has been identified, no further investigation needed for the purpose of the EICR. Fault finding to identify the cause of the C3 is a different matter, and does not come under the heading of FI.

 

[Dartlec]

Its possible the Zs result could still be satisfactory for the circuit protective device used so I would probably give it a C3 or FI but we all have different views on these things.

It's definitely not clear which reading is being talked about, but none of the R1+R2 listed in the schedule are high enough to cause an issue with the OCPD.

The kitchen socket one is higher than might be expected by the r1+r2/4 method, but not high enough to cause an issue with the OPCD.

The downstairs sockets seem to have a higher R1+R2 than Zs, but that is quite likely due to a poor switch and/or poor testing.

But even with the calculated method of Zs, none of those readings would breach the maximum permitted, so although they may be the sign of something to be investigated in an ideal world, I don't see that they should prevent a satisfactory EICR.

 

[westward10]

This is the problem with a non specific statement Report like this everyone is guessing making it nigh on impossible for a third party to quote for remedial works.

 

[Julie.]

BS 60898 is an MCB, BS 61009 would be an RCBO

The RCD test button seems to be functional on all circuits except the upstairs sockets so is it a dual RCD board

Oops looks like I worded it the wrong way around when I was leaving this morning, yeah, I was trying to point out the inconsistencies, the same device can't have rcd in some cases and not in others.

Not sure about duel as the way the circuits are laid out in the report doesn't leave space for the rcd.

 

[brianmoooore]

Pic of the consumer unit would help here.

 

[wackybelle]

Thank you all for your very helpful reply. I got a trustworthy electrician to fix the minor issues. The electrician said that they repeated mention same thing multiple times as C2. The 'high' R1+R2 reading in their report appears to be normal. The electrician only charged me £50 and provided a detailed description of the problem of the EICR and the remedial he did. Only a couple of clamps were required.

I will refuse to pay the company who did the EICR. Bad trademan! Will blacklist it.

 

[Risteard]

Thank you all for your very helpful reply. I got a trustworthy electrician to fix the minor issues. The electrician said that they repeated mention same thing multiple times as C2. The 'high' R1+R2 reading in their report appears to be normal. The electrician only charged me £50 and provided a detailed description of the problem of the EICR and the remedial he did. Only a couple of clamps were required.

I will refuse to pay the company who did the EICR. Bad trademan! Will blacklist it.

What grounds do you have for a refusal to pay?

Incidentally a high (R1+R2) result is indicative of a loose connection and shouldn't be ignored (if it was accurately listed as a defect within the installation).

 

[brianmoooore]

What grounds do you have for a refusal to pay?

Because they were clearly "trying it on".
Ultimately you will probably have to pay, but in your shoes I would drag the process out, and cause them as much aggro (and expense) as possible.c