EICR, CU Fire Board - What Rules are Retrospective?

[RealPolitik]

Recently had an EICR done - the consumer unit in the house was replaced (perhaps unnecessarily) for the last EICR. The electrician has now marked the lack of a fire board behind it as a C2, referring to reg 512.2.

The unit is in a recessed cupboard (now minus its door, as the “new“ one was deeper than the one it replaced) in the kitchen, backing onto an outside wall, next to the house back door.

Does that sound like a C2 observation?

 

[ericmark]

Interesting, I was under the impression that the fire board was for DNO equipment only, and in theory we should not mount the consumer unit on that board, even though we often do.

My version of BS7671 is old (2008) can't justify £125 for new copy, so the reference does not refer to use of the DNO fire board in my version.

 

[davelx]

On offer at £108 at the moment

 

[flameport]

The electrician has now marked the lack of a fire board behind it as a C2, referring to reg 512.2.

All modern consumer units are fully enclosed at the back, there is no need for any board behind one.
Generally they are fixed directly to the wall.

There were some rewireable fuseboxes which were just a frame and front cover, and those did require a suitable board behind or the use of a separate paxolin backplate. However that is ancient history from decades ago.

Does that sound like a C2 observation?

No, it sounds like made up stories to garner unnecessary work.

 

[endecotp]

Recently had an EICR done

Why?

 

[RealPolitik]

Why?

Five years since the first one.

 

[endecotp]

Five years since the first one.

I’m guessing it’s not your own home, right? There is no requirement for regular inspections in your own home.

 

[RealPolitik]

No, this is a rental.

 

[ericmark]

Can anyone quote what 512.2. says? My old book says 512.2 External influences, which has nothing to do with a back board, so what does it say now?

 

[endecotp]

No, this is a rental.

Right.

This seems to be the standard procedure with EICRs where they are only being done as a legal requirement. The electrician walks around the property looking for easy jobs that he can do for a tidy profit, and writes a report to suit. The numbers - which 99% of the people who commission the reports don't even begin to understand - could be entirely fictitious. See numerous other similar threads on here.

I'd like to imagine that you could find someone who will write an honest report if you paid more than the lowest price offered, but I don't think we've seen any evidence of that.

If you care deeply enough, you could consider reporting them to whichever "competent persons" (hah!) scheme they are a member of.

 

[ericmark]

If you care deeply enough, you could consider reporting them to whichever "competent persons" (hah!) scheme they are a member of.

In the main, they do not do the EICR under the umbrella of the scheme. So most of the time the scheme provider is not interested in the report.

 

[JohnW2]

Can anyone quote what 512.2. says? My old book says 512.2 External influences, which has nothing to do with a back board, so what does it say now?

Still all about 'External Influences',nothing to do with 'back boards'.

 

[JohnW2]

I'd like to imagine that you could find someone who will write an honest report if you paid more than the lowest price offered, but I don't think we've seen any evidence of that.

We've sometimes attempted to do that, I think with a reasonable degree of success. If we can't use someone whom we know well and feel we can 'trust', we engage someone who is charging what we regard as a reasonable (hence fairly high) price for doing the job properly, but on the understanding that the person in question will not be used for any remedial work that the EICR indicates is required. ... sometimes with a 'softener' that if we are satisfied/impressed by their work, there may well be more 'real work' to come from us subsequently.

You may be surprised that people are prepared to work on that basis, but we generally find that decent/conscientious electricians understand our position and are happy to go along with our wishes provided they are getting paid a decent amount for doing a proper EICR.

 

[ericmark]

Thanks, so it is clear it is an erroneous report. The problem as I see it, any erroneous report means:-
1) The landlord has done his duty, by getting a report.
2) He does not need to action anything as he knows the report is erroneous.
3) He does not need to pay for an erroneous report.
As to getting a proper report, it would be up to the courts to decide, personally I would not want to fight a court case even if I was in the right, however it is the local council who police this, so one would get a warning first.

So an email thank-you for the report, however there seems to be some errors, please submit a corrected report. etc.

I had this with the local council, they sent social services to see why mother was not answering the doorbell, and it was because the batteries were discharged. I pointed out, it is not something I check on each time I visit, and to fit a power supply instead of batteries would be better.

I was well aware in the main the doorbell only used by religious nuts and the like, trying to get mother to worship, and she had been an atheist for years, and really did not need a doorbell. Her carers knew where the key was, and the number to get the key from the key safe.

But social services decided she should have a power supply, so she could answer the doorbell, so arranged for the 8 volt transformer to be replaced with a 12 volt power supply connected to the bell.

It seems the electrical firm could not find a DC hard-wired power supply, so their workaround was to fit a socket that power a wallmart 12 volt power supply, and use some oversized crimp connectors to connect it, a right heath Robinson affaire.

When I saw it, my thoughts were that more likely to fail than the batteries, so I put my RCD tester on the socket, which failed to trip any RCD, clearly connected wrong side of the consumer unit, so I asked the social services for the minor works certificate, I was of course sure the firm would not provide one, as it clearly had not been tested, or they would have known their error.

It went on for months, me asking for the certificate, then my mother went into hospital and I used the chance to get the house rewired. I knew it needed doing for years, but my late dad would not let me do it, so now he was dead, I took the chance to get it done with mother out of the way.

So the lacking minor works was no longer a problem.

But I have something called it seem ADHD, so I enjoyed upsetting the social services and the electrical firm.

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks, so it is clear it is an erroneous report. The problem as I see it, any erroneous report means:-
1) The landlord has done his duty, by getting a report.

It's certainly true tyhat he has done part of his duty, but ....

2) He does not need to action anything as he knows the report is erroneous.

That is much more debatable, given the way in which the legislation (for England) is written, which is one of the major worries about the legislation.

For a start, who is to say that the landlord 'knows' that the report is erroneous - the fact that others have suggested that to him proves nothing. More to the point, the legislation seems to include no provision for appealing against what one believes is an erroneous report - the landlord is obliged to have any C1s or C2s reported on the EICR remedied within 28 days of the report being produced. The only 'appeal' process built into the legislation seems to relate to an appeal against a 'Remedial Notice' served on the landlord by the LA, but that will presumably only happen after the landlord has failed to have the remedial work undertaken within the specified time frame.
This is, in my opinion, a totally unsatisfactory sittuaition.

3) He does not need to pay for an erroneous report.

That may well be true, but it's a totally different matter, and could involve Trading Standards, contractual matters and/or Civil Courts - and many people might regard it as 'too much hassle'.