EICR - tester exceeding remit and the regs?

The second ringed text has no basis in the regulations - let alone warranting a C2.

"421.1.201 Within domestic (household) premises, consumer units and similar switch gear assemblies shall
comply with BS EN 61439-3 and shall:
(i) have their enclosure manufactured from non-combustible material, or
(ii) be enclosed in a cabinet or enclosure constructed of non-combustible material and complying with Regulation
132.12.
NOTE: Ferrous metal, e.g. steel, is deemed to be an example of a non-combustible material."


That's all it says.
132.12 is merely about access to the CU.

DetlefSchmitz said:

wouldn't?

Click to expand...

Yep, apologies, corrected!

Kind Regards, John

EFLImpudence said:

The second ringed text has no basis in the regulations - let alone warranting a C2.

Click to expand...

Quite so - where on earth did the bits about staircases and escape routes come from, I wonder?

I wish that there was a reg which would allow one to give a C2 for "earthed metal enclosure in close proximity to live parts"

Kind Regards, John

It would only be classed as C2 if there is evidence of bad connections leading to overheating. Otherwise C3 - no action required

ericmark said:

Sorry looking at the English, if there was a definition that says and installation is considered not to be potentially dangerous if and some description then one can say exactly when it is or is not.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, my personal view is that in the absence of explicit definitions and/or explicit details one is perfectly justified in assuming that words have their everyday meanings, and exercising ('informed') personal judgement and common sense. If that want to write totally prescriptive detailed regs, they could.

One thing that few people seem to consider is that when regulations are not explicitly detailed, that is sometimes deliberate in order to allow a degree of individual discretion/judgement. Anyone who has ever tried to write a totally comprehensive set of rules, covering 'every conceivable situation' (I have), will understand why the other approach is not uncommonly taken!

Kind Regards, John

RF Lighting said:

It would only be classed as C2 if there is evidence of bad connections leading to overheating. Otherwise C3 - no action required

Click to expand...

If bad connections in a CU were already causing 'overheating', would there perhaps not be an argument for it being C1?

Kind Regards, John

Depends how bad it is

RF Lighting said:

It would only be classed as C2 if there is evidence of bad connections leading to overheating. Otherwise C3 - no action required

Click to expand...

Ok. Is there something relevant in the preceding column that we can't see?

This on its own doesn't make sense; why did you circle it?



The location of the CU is still not mentioned in the regulations.

EFLImpudence said:

Ok. Is there something relevant in the preceding column that we can't see?

This on its own doesn't make sense; why did you circle it?

View attachment 202019

The location of the CU is still not mentioned in the regulations.

Click to expand...

I can see that fire regulations may result in a premises which was compliant with fire regulation is not longer permitted, however I see the title of the thread is exceeding remit, and that is a very good point, be it disabled access, or any other building or fire regulation it is not really up to the electrician to point out.

So let us assume a consumer unit is under the wooden stairs, and the stairs are replaced with metal ones, how would the builder raise an electrical minor works certificate when he has done nothing electrical?

ericmark said:

I can see that fire regulations may result in a premises which was compliant with fire regulation is not longer permitted...

Click to expand...

What on earth have fire regulations got to do with an EICR?

As posted by RF, the only things one can comment on/code in an EICR are those for which one can quote a regulation in BS7671 which is not being complied with. I am unaware of anything in BS7671 relating to CUs under stairs or in escape routes - or anywhere else, come to that, provided only that they are adequately 'accessible'.

Kind Regards, John

I seem to remember that having combustible material under a staircase was a fire regulation, so I assume this must not have a CU made from a combustible material is also a fire regulation rather than an electrical regulation.

There are a few places where other regulations impact on the electrical installation, from fitting extractor fans when there is an open flue, to hight of sockets and switches, and how close to corners of a room, the Part L and M building regulations does impact on what can be done electrically.

However as to an ELECTRICAL installation condition report, I would have said that is restricted to the electrical safety and an inspector can not be reasonable expected to include a fire or any other safety inspection, and if he does it could lead to errors and reduction in safety standards.

I last year moved into a new house, and had an inspection done, I was looking for any structural faults before buying, however the surveyor also listed electrical items, and when I said to my wife we needed to change the consumer unit, she said the inspection said it was OK.

OK I know it was not OK, but it pointed out to me what happens if some one considered as an expert lists things out of his remit, the same goes for electrical inspections for insurance, it seems SSE offers an insurance for the electrical installation in a house, and as part of the service there is an annual check, think the insurance costs some thing like £70 per year, which clearly can't cover the cost of a full EICR, however it is a report on the electrical installation condition so the thread I read the home owner was convinced he was getting an annual EICR.

Doing any work on a home where you note some thing dangerous or potentially dangerous clearly you have a duty to point out the danger, but if I can give an example.

In a home with a solid fuel fire which heats the domestic hot water we all know the water header tank should be metal or thermal setting plastic which can stand boiling water, as part of the electrical inspection it is likely we would notice when a thermal plastic header tank has been fitted in error, and we should clearly tell the owner that the wrong header tank has been fitted, but this is not part of our remit, so putting a comment in an accompanied letter is correct, but it should not appear on the EICR.

Be it cardboard stored under stairs, or doors too narrow, or stairs too steep, it is not our job to report, when house hunting we saw some really odd things, we viewed a two bedroom bungalow with 5 bedrooms, but it seemed the 3 bedrooms upstairs could not be advertised as stairs did not comply.

Where I find it hard is when a circuit is locked off, it is so easy to remove the lock after the inspection, but be it drop the tails or fit a lock then never sure what should be done.

Thanks guys. The CU is on the exit route but is NOT under wooden stairs as its a top floor flat. It is also not communal.

I will not be bullied and mislead into the £450 quote to replace a CU that has only a few circuits (its a small 2 bed flat) - seems very heavy. If it was £250 I'd just have said do it - its an upgrade...

I had a look for a non combustible box to put over it and may elect to do that. Does anyone know of a good supplier?

Thanks

I think this forum like every other one is going to be full of people complaining about EICR's. In the days when it simply went to the owner and he decided what he wanted to do, there was really no problem if C2 instead of C3, but now you have to give the tenant the report, and if asked the council, the C2 instead of C3 becomes a big issue.

Personally I thing the problem with the plastic consumer unit was the terminals in many MCB's and RCBO's were in some makes not forced open as you undid the screw, and could flop around, making it easy to fit the units without the bus bar being firmly clamped by the terminal but it ended up wrong side and was just pressed against the terminal, so any tests for torque showed it as being tight, but it was not, which caused the heat which caused the fires, the metal consumer unit was a knee jerk reaction and did not actually redress the route problem of MCB/RCBO design.

So I would fit a RCD or RCBO, and even change a type AC for type A where there are inverter controlled appliances, but not simply to change from plastic to steel, my CU is steel but the isolator and electric meter are still plastic, and I have seen no moves by the DNO to fit steel electric meters.

So the regulations don't require you to up-grade, however is seems some letting agents do, and there is nothing to say a letting agent should not demand a higher standard than the law requires. Personally I think a plastic CU is a C3, and that seems to be supported by most adversity bodies like the Electrical Safety Council.

I would guess in the future landlords will ask electricians before engaging them, "what do you class a plastic CU as?" and if they say C2 not employ them. But at the moment it seems letting agents want an EICR with no C2's, the law says as far as I can see you just have to include a copy of the installation certificate or minor works certificate with the EICR and you don't need a new report, but that is seems is not what a letting agent wants.

At £400 for an EICR fitting a new CU could be cheaper than getting it tested again, but not if some one wants a new CU and testing again.

ericmark said:

I seem to remember that having combustible material under a staircase was a fire regulation, so I assume this must not have a CU made from a combustible material is also a fire regulation rather than an electrical regulation.

Click to expand...

In that sense, a good few things in BS7671 (particularly those related to cable sizes and over-current protection etc.) could be described as 'fire regulations', but that's not what we're talking about.

We are talking about what regs are actually in BS7671, since only non-compliances with actual BS7671 regs can (should) be mentioned/coded on an EICR - and there is certainly nothing in BS7671 about CUs under staircases.

Kind Regards, John

ericmark said:

Where I find it hard is when a circuit is locked off, it is so easy to remove the lock after the inspection, but be it drop the tails or fit a lock then never sure what should be done.

Click to expand...

AFAIK and electrician carrying out a EICR has no legal right to lock off or disconnect a circuit and deprive the owner of the benefit of his property. You could render yourself liable to legal action. All you can do is draw the owner's attention to the problem and recommend that the circuit be switched off until the fault has been remedied. I think we've had this discussion before.