Rented House 5 year Electrical Check Tomorrow

[conny]

What can we expect?

The CU is high up on the wall behind an MDF board with 2 opening doors. Just enough room to get the CU cover off to access the cables and see the meter head, (I have been told it is TN-C-S). My main concern is the CU appears to be polycarbonate with no lid over the MCB's because the MDF board is fitted fairly close. It has a Crabtree 100mA ELCB as the main switch.
Could the tester demand a new CU or would this be acceptable?
The landlord has only had the house for the past 5 1/2 years and this will be the first inspection for us and him.

 

[ericmark]

Wish there was an answer, it is up to the inspector to decide, under HSE rules one should be able to step back from any distribution unit, and it is clear if you need steps or crawling under stairs it would not comply, even steel bars to stop damage by fork lifts often mean the step back rule is rarely complied with. There are many more examples of where there is some deviation from the recommendations and rules.

So code C2 = potentially dangerous, not does not comply with rules, laws and regulations, so the inspector is free to code as he sees fit.

 

[conny]

I have to stand on a small set of steps to read the meter, so no chance of stepping backwards, but my youngest stepson is 6'-2" and he can read it easily. It is on the landing at the top of the stairs so I'm not sure were the supply comes in as there are no cables across the front or back of the house so they probably come underground somewhere. How they get to the top of the stairs is beyond me as there are no obvious ducts/channels etc.

 

[RF Lighting]

As you only have a 100mA RCD then straight away your installation will be found to be in an unsatisfactory condition.

The height of the CU shouldn’t really be an issue as the inspector can access it to carry out his work. I have never heard of the step back rule mentioned above.

It is most likely that a replacement CU will be required as virtually all domestic circuits now require 30mA RCD protection and a single up front RCD is not compliant either.

 

[JohnW2]

The height of the CU shouldn’t really be an issue as the inspector can access it to carry out his work. I have never heard of the step back rule mentioned above.

For what it's worth, nor have I - it sounds rather like an 'industrial rule' to me!

... and a single up front RCD is not compliant either.

I don't doubt that an EICR inspector would probably say that but, as I often say, I think that there is a lot of 'over-interpretation' of the reg in question!

Kind Regards, John

 

[studentspark]

It is most likely that a replacement CU will be required as virtually all domestic circuits now require 30mA RCD protection

Curious. What code would you give a CU with no RCD protection

 

[JohnW2]

Curious. What code would you give a CU with no RCD protection

It is, as far as I am aware, the one and only case in which (an 'Informative' Appendix of) BS7671 says anything about 'what code should be given for what' - and it says "at least C3"!
'
Kind Regards, John

 

[studentspark]

C3 yes.
But just wondering why it would be elevated to a C2 if all tests well.

I presume it has been elevated to a C2 by the comment ' A new CU will be most likely required'

 

[RF Lighting]

I don't doubt that an EICR inspector would probably say that but, as I often say, I think that there is a lot of 'over-interpretation' of the reg in question!

You do often say this, and I often say that I don't think there is over interpretation. I would be surprised to find anyone carrying out EICRs who didn't code a single up front RCD.

C2 for lighting circuits serving a location containing a bath or shower if supplementary bonding is not present.
C2 for a socket likely to supply equipment for use outside.

This applies equally to a CU with no RCD protection and a CU with 100mA protection.

 

[Adam_151]

C3 for cocnealed cables without 30mA RCD
C3 for circuits in bathroom without 30mA RCD
C3 for domestic lighting without 30mA RCD

C2 for socket outlets which could be used outside without 30mA RCD

Borderline C3/C2 for other sockets without 30mA RCD (could justify either way depending on judgement call - Student let probably go to a C2, let to a professional bloke living alone might justify it as a C3 if the CU would't otherwise need changing). RCD for general use came in not last decade but the one before that, and since the early 90s they have been standard for sockets in domestic... its very much approaching the point where domestic socket outlets without RCD are not a satsifactory situation...

 

[JohnW2]

You do often say this, and I often say that I don't think there is over interpretation. I would be surprised to find anyone carrying out EICRs who didn't code a single up front RCD.

As I said, I don't doubt that's what an EICR inspector would probably do. As for 'over-interpretation' that's a matter of opinion, and we obviously disagree. The main issue people seem to focus upon is the 'being plunged into darkness' one - and, as I always say, there are far more satisfactory ways of addressing that than by 'division of circuits'.

C2 for lighting circuits serving a location containing a bath or shower if supplementary bonding is not present. C2 for a socket likely to supply equipment for use outside. This applies equally to a CU with no RCD protection and a CU with 100mA protection.

Probably, but I was talking about a single up-front 30mA RCD (hence covering all circuits and all cables), which would presumably address all those issues.

Kind Regards, John

 

[studentspark]

Whats so dangerous about using a socket (Indoors) that has no RCD protection?
If the protective device will operate in the correct time. Does it require urgent remedial action.
I mean, would you attend an emergency call out because someone said they have no RCD? Doubt it
I have no problem with RCD's btw

 

[JohnW2]

C3 for cocnealed cables without 30mA RCD
C3 for circuits in bathroom without 30mA RCD
C3 for domestic lighting without 30mA RCD
C2 for socket outlets which could be used outside without 30mA RCD
Borderline C3/C2 for other sockets without 30mA RCD ....

Fair enough - but, as I've just (by implication) asked RF, what if there were a single up-front 30 mA RCD protecting all circuits and all cables?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

As I said, I don't doubt that's what an EICR inspector would probably do. As for 'over-interpretation' that's a matter of opinion, and we obviously disagree. The main issue people seem to focus upon is the 'being plunged into darkness' one - and, as I always say, there are far more satisfactory ways of addressing that than by 'division of circuits'.

It's not just the being plunged in to darkness, but also not being able to reset any of the installation until the fault has been tracked and cleared, so no light, heat, cooking, freezer, access to DIYnot etc. if a single circuit, or even half of a dual RCD board is lost then most people will be able to survive until an electrician can be acquired.

Fair enough - but, as I've just (by implication) asked RF, what if there were a single up-front 30 mA RCD protecting all circuits and all cables?

There isn't. the OP has said it is a 100mA device.

 

[JohnW2]

It's not just the being plunged in to darkness, but also not being able to reset any of the installation until the fault has been tracked and cleared, so no light, heat, cooking, freezer, access to DIYnot etc. if a single circuit, or even half of a dual RCD board is lost then most people will be able to survive until an electrician can be acquired.

That's all true, but they all all essentially 'inconveniences', which do not present any (electrical) dangers, so I have to wonder how appropriate it would be to classify the situation as "Potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required" (i.e. C2).

There isn't. the OP has said it is a 100mA device.

Sure, but I was responding you comment ..

.... and a single up front RCD is not compliant either.

... which appeared to be a general comment - i.e. which you would make even if it were a 30 mA one. Is that not the case?

Kind Regards, John