Need some advice on a EICR

It should be a C3. The thing is at one point the Regs moved away from Metal to plastic & now plastic is deemed combustible so if it was a new installation it wouldn't be allowed. The Test results all look very good apart from the missing Trip times - is that report the one completed for you recently, it must be? If so i can no see a reason why that wasn't tested or has been omitted from the results.

ss81 said:

I agree that if it is a C3 then it's only recommended, but the report that was produced said that it was a C2 on the Observations page, but on the Inspection schedule page shows it's a C3. Should it be C2 or C3, bearing in mind the consumer unit was installed when the flat was built in 2005?

Click to expand...

As has been said, this has been much debated here (and elsewhere). The issues has always existed, but has come into much greater focus since July, when the legislation requiring inspections/reports (effectively EICRs, although the legislation itself does not use, or even mention, that term) for private rented premises came into force. Prior to that, EICRs had no 'teeth' - they were essentially just 'advisory' to the person who had commissioned it, who was free to ignore everything in it if they so wished.

I think it's probably fair to say that most people (including here) think that a plastic CU should not get a C3 - i.e. it should get C3 or nothing. However, none of this is 'dictated' or regulated and the problem is that the decision as to whether or not a non-compliance/conformity with the current regulations represents a 'potential risk which requires urgent remedial action' (i.e. C2) is down to the judgement/discretion of te individual inspector.

This is clearly totally unsatisfactory (akin to a 'postcode lottery', given that it depends on who does the inspection), and there's no obvious immediate solution (I think that some changes/extensions to or, at least, clarifications of, the legislation are ultimately going to be required - but that's no help now).

Both the legislation and associated guidance documents are rather unclear about this, but one option might be to discuss this with your LA, to indicate that you were unhappy with some aspects of the EICR and intended to have another done. If they were happy with that (rather than 'forcing you' to stick with the findings of the first EICR) then, albeit it would cost you another £192 or whatever (but a lot less than a new CU), you could then get another done - but, of course, only after first asking the person who was to do the second EICR about his/her approach to (coding of) a plastic CU!

I would add that although "smoke detectors have expired" is probably an issue you would want to address, I don't think it's actually within the scope of an EICR, witness the fact that (unlike the other things) there were not able to quote the number of a regulation in BS7671 which they claimed was being violated.

Kind Regards, John

The PIR (Periodic inspection report) then EICR (Electrical installation condition report) was never designed to be used as a legal document, even the BS 7671 says

BS 7671:2008 said:

114.1 The Regulations are non-statutory. They may, however, be used in a court of law in evidence to
claim compliance with a statutory requirement. The relevant statutory provisions are listed in Appendix 2 and
include Acts of Parliament and Regulations made thereunder. In some cases statutory Regulations may be
accompanied by Codes of Practice approved under Section 16 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The
legal status of these Codes is explained in Section 17 of the 1974 Act.
For a supply given in accordance with the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002, it shall be
deemed that the connection with Earth of the neutral of the supply is permanent. Outside England, Scotland and
Wales, confirmation shall be sought from the distributor that the supply conforms to requirements corresponding to
those of the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002, in this respect. Where the ESQCR do not
apply, equipment for isolation and switching shall be selected accordingly as specified in Chapter 53.

Click to expand...

I have not got BS 7671:2018 so don't know the dates, but legal wise we would need to look at the regulations it's self i.e. ESQCR and the like, and we simply don't have those to hand, if we work to BS 7671 then in the main we are sure we have complied with the other regulations. The government has done it on the cheap, and this is the result.

I note that circuit 8 (sockets) seems to have a broken earth.
Has that been resolved?

Looks like a mistake given there's a good R1+R2 value? Especially as other Values are >200 ?

endecotp said:

I note that circuit 8 (sockets) seems to have a broken earth.
Has that been resolved?

Click to expand...

They have included "Rectify Open Ring Circuit in the quote for £144 + VAT

chivers67 said:

Looks like a mistake given there's a good R1+R2 value? Especially as other Values are >200 ?

Click to expand...

What looks like a mistake? The open earth? They have quoted to fix this too!!!

ss81 said:

They have included "Rectify Open Ring Circuit in the quote for £144 + VAT

Click to expand...

How this annoys me. He's disconnected the circuit from the board to run the R1/R2 tests. He's found that the CPC (Earth) is broken in the ring so rather than spend a few minutes finding it seeing as he's done most of the hard work, he it puts it back together again and wants another 144 quid when most of the time will likely be spent disconnecting and reconnecting the circuit again. Assuming you were about I would have expected a good sparky to either have fixed it without charge (if they were in a good mood) or to have told you before they put everything back to together and charged you time for the 10 minutes max it would likely take to find and fix.

Taking 13 sockets off to find one loose Earth would add too much time to his busy schedule - you'd take a few off anyway wouldn't you?

chivers67 said:

Taking 13 sockets off to find one loose Earth would add too much time to his busy schedule - you'd take a few off anyway wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

If he was going to "take a few off, anyway" (or was that also sarcasm?) , did you perhaps mean "...would not add too much time..." - or was it just sarcasm?

Kind Regards, John

Clearly this sparky just wants to make money.

That said, do you want to go through this grief at every tenant change? so maybe it would be a good idea to find a cheaper sparky and get it upgraded not to have to go through all this trouble at tenant change

LANGUAGE WARNING
45 mins !
I think they have make an amendment since this

@ 6mins sums it up nicely

AndyPRK said:

Clearly this sparky just wants to make money. That said, do you want to go through this grief at every tenant change? so maybe it would be a good idea to find a cheaper sparky and get it upgraded not to have to go through all this trouble at tenant change

Click to expand...

It obviously depends upon a personal decision as to how pragmatic one wants to be but, if it were me, I think that I probably would, on principle, be reticent to pay for significant work (like a CU change) which I did not believe was actually 'required'.

Also, at a 'tenant change', I would certainly want to quiz anyone I was considering asking to do an EICR about their attitude/approach to some of the more predictable major potentially contentious issues (like the coding of plastic CUs)!

The current situation is so unsatisfactory that I would hope that things will have been 'improved' by the time of the next tenant change.

Mind you, EICRs are not the only issue around. If you recall, we fairly recently heard of some letting agents who were, for whatever reason, attempting to impose (contractually) some crazy requirements on landlords - e.g. a requirement that main bonding conductors be duplicated, if I recall correctly!

Kind Regards, John

chivers67 said:

Taking 13 sockets off to find one loose Earth would add too much time to his busy schedule - you'd take a few off anyway wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

He could have a good guess from his Zs testing where the problem is ... assuming he bothered to do that correctly. I'm guess he would also write up a cracked faceplate as well rather than replace it

AndyPRK said:

Clearly this sparky just wants to make money.

That said, do you want to go through this grief at every tenant change? so maybe it would be a good idea to find a cheaper sparky and get it upgraded not to have to go through all this trouble at tenant change

LANGUAGE WARNING
45 mins !
I think they have make an amendment since this

@ 6mins sums it up nicely

Click to expand...

Thanks for this. It's a shame the guy in the YouTube video is not near to me in Essex, as I would get him to do another test. I plan to get a CU in the future, but it will be in-between tenants to reduce any upheaval for them. I feel this has been unfairly tested and is just taking advantage, and feel the comments on this back this up and the currant installation is safe.

There is more 'speculation' whether a new EICR is required AT every tenant change because the legislation states that an inspection be carried out every five years, therefore every tenancy that begins during that five years will be covered by the current inspection which was carried out before those tenancies begin.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/312/regulation/3/made