Another EICR Query

Hi there

Apologies in advance for a long post. I have got an EICR done for a typical 3-bed end of terrace rental house last week (sourced through OpenRent). The house has a main consumer unit and an additional one for the converted garage (bedroom + shower room). The report has come out today as 'Unsatisfactory' with two C2 and C3 observations each as attached (hopefully you can read it).



There are no further details in the report about these observations or recommendations on what actions are required to remove these which I think is very unhelpful. Below is the extract of the report covering two consumer units.




The first C2 is for lack of supplementary bonding in the bath/shower area but the report doesn't clarify which bathroom or both. From the report, it appears that the first floor family bathroom (presumably fed from first-floor lighting circuit) is only MCB protected but the downstairs shower room is MCB and 30mA RCD protected.

The second C2 is for lack of grommet in metal socket for cable serving boiler. To best of my knowledge, none of the existing metal pattrasses has grommets installed which would indicate this issue is specific to a particular socket. Again there is no further details or photo included to help understand the issue.

This is my first experience of EICR so not sure what the next steps are, hence this post for seeking help. I would be contacting the company issuing the report for more details but would be grateful if you can offer any comments or advice on these observations or remedial works needed.

Thanks in advance.
Dan

1.

701.415.2 - the relevant regulation - states:
"Where the location containing a bath or shower is in a building with a protective equipotential bonding system in
accordance with Regulation 411.3.1.2, supplementary protective equipotential bonding may be omitted where all of
the following conditions are met:
(iv) All final circuits of the location comply with the requirements for automatic disconnection according to
Regulation 411.3.2
(v) All final circuits of the location have additional protection by means of an RCD in accordance with
Regulation 415.1.1
(vi) All extraneous-conductive-parts of the location are effectively connected to the protective equipotential
bonding according to Regulation 411.3.1.2"

411.3.1.2 relates to the Main Bonding.
So it is difficult to know what is meant by the report wording.

2.

The Main Bonding should be verified - it might not be required at all if the water supply is plastic.
Should be C2 if MB is required and not fitted. If not required then not even C3 - but C3 is only 'improvement recommended'.

However, it is dependent on the Main Bonding being present if required - so it is his lack of inspection which has led to the C2 given for the wrong reason.


3.

What is a circuit chart? C3 not important anyway.

4.

Easily cured. Buy a grommet, cut it and fit round the cable. Hardly a C2 anyway.


If that is all then it is quite good compared with others seen lately since the new PRS legislation.

Item 1: You have 2 options. Either install local supplementary bonding in the bathroom linking the CPC of all circuits with any metallic services which enter the bathroom ie hot and cold water pipes, metal drain pipes, radiator pipes, cast iron baths* etc, OR install RCD protection to all circuits which serve this room.

Depending on the manufacturer of your consumer unit, it should be a fairly simple job for an electrician to swap your MCB to an RCBO.

Having said that, no RCD protection to the lighting circuits is a non compliance in its own right and should have been noted during the inspection, but let’s not go down that route!

EFLImpudence said:

it is difficult to know what is meant by the report wording.

Click to expand...

It reads to me as a bathroom without RCD protection OR supplementary bonding which rightly attracts a C2
I’m imagining the regulation number quoted is an error and the wrong type of bonding not present has been selected on the EICR software.

But we don't know.

RF Lighting said:

It reads to me as a bathroom without RCD protection OR supplementary bonding which rightly attracts a C2

Click to expand...

If SB is actually required. If not, then C3 for no RCD.

If he can't find the Main Bond, perhaps he can't find the Supplementary Bonds.

Thanks both for your prompt and very helpful responses. To add to your comments:

1. The first-floor bathroom has downlights, mirror light and a ventilation fan only. Presumably, all these are fed from First Floor lighting circuit which is only MCB protected. The bathroom was refitted around 5 years ago and I don't remember SB being already present or installed by the builder. So my simple option should be to replace the MCB with RCBO. There are 3 MCBs in total which are not RCD protected (2 lighting circuits and Cooker). Not sure if a new RCD can be fitted instead to protect all these 3 circuits or I would need to install 3 individual RCBOs.

2. The MB is present but not easy to locate. It is next to the main stop cock hidden behind a corner kitchen unit and accessible through a hole in the back of the unit. It is very difficult to find for a new person entering the property for the first time, and also kitchen unit may be full of utensils hiding the hole.

3. Will ignore it as doesn't seem significant.

4. I can fit grommet myself or get the electrician to do it when they come to swap MCB, advantage being I get paper evidence of work done.

In summary, the remedial works I need is to replace minimum 1 MCB or preferably 3 with RCBOs, get the MB presence verified and fit a grommet to one socket. If I give this work to the company who undertook the EICR, will they give me an updated EICR with 'satisfactory' rating? Or I can get the work done through a local competent electrician who can issue me a certificate/report that I can append the EICR for records.

Please advise your thoughts/comments on above.

Dan Vittori said:

1. The first-floor bathroom has downlights, mirror light and a ventilation fan only. Presumably, all these are fed from First Floor lighting circuit which is only MCB protected. The bathroom was refitted around 5 years ago and I don't remember SB being already present or installed by the builder. So my simple option should be to replace the MCB with RCBO.

Click to expand...

That would be simplest.

However, if the lights, mirror and fan have no touchable earthed metal parts (exposed-conductive-parts) OR are not simultaneously touchable with any water pipes/taps then Supplementary Bonding will not be required anyway.
Also, if there are plastic water pipes on the way to the bathroom, there might not be any parts TO bond.

This might be why there is no SB - it is not required. We obviously cannot tell; measurements need taking.
Just because there is no SB does not mean it must be fitted.

There are 3 MCBs in total which are not RCD protected (2 lighting circuits and Cooker). Not sure if a new RCD can be fitted instead to protect all these 3 circuits or I would need to install 3 individual RCBOs.

Click to expand...

Three RCBOs would be better and easier than fitting an RCCB covering several circuits.

2. The MB is present but not easy to locate. It is next to the main stop cock hidden behind a corner kitchen unit and accessible through a hole in the back of the unit. It is very difficult to find for a new person entering the property for the first time, and also kitchen unit may be full of utensils hiding the hole.

Click to expand...

Ok.

3. Will ignore it as doesn't seem significant.

Click to expand...

Yes

4. I can fit grommet myself or get the electrician to do it when they come to swap MCB, advantage being I get paper evidence of work done.

Click to expand...

Yes, you will need the paperwork.

In summary, the remedial works I need is to replace minimum 1 MCB or preferably 3 with RCBOs, get the MB presence verified and fit a grommet to one socket. If I give this work to the company who undertook the EICR, will they give me an updated EICR with 'satisfactory' rating? Or I can get the work done through a local competent electrician who can issue me a certificate/report that I can append the EICR for records.

Click to expand...

As you said, you just need evidence that the work has been done.

You and RF Lighting are assuming that the EICR Inspector is correct whereas I am assuming he is not.

SB is not a question of "there is none, there should be".
C2 for a missing grommet is ludicrous.

Thanks again for the prompt response.

The downlights and fan are fine with pull cord switches but the mirror light is actually mounted on top of an aluminium cabinet above washbasin with a manual switch on side of the cabinet. All pipework coming into the bathroom and up to washbasin is copper. The builder might have used plastic pipes from washbasin to bathtub filler taps and the shower, can't remember now. The taps are connected through flexi-pipes. The towel rail is also on copper pipes.

Anyway, if installing RCBOs will make the overall installation safer for occupants in the long run then I am happy to spend reasonable money and get it done rather than challenging the observation which may not be successful.

Time to make some enquiries.

Thanks again for your kind advice.

On a side note, OpenRent have emailed asking for additional fees to be paid as there were 2 CUs at the property. Their exact words are as below

Our engineer has located a second fuseboard in your property, please note the price that is quoted is based on the presence of 1 fuseboard (between 1 and 10 circuits) as it is a rarity for most houses in London to have more than 1 fuseboard. Unfortunately because of this, an additional charge of £78 inc vat will be incurred. Payment would be required before we can send these reports to you, please see images below of your fuseboard. Your invoice has now been updated and resent.

From my perspective, I filled the form correctly with all the details asked and paid in advance based on their quote as it was reasonable. The total number of circuits excluding RCDs and the main switch is still 10. The tenant told me that the Engineer was in and out within half an hour. So the extra amount being asked seems totally excessive to me. Also, they have already sent the EICR report.

Any thoughts on the above if I should challenge the additional invoice. Thanks.

I don't see how the 'engineer' could have done all the things he has recorded in half an hour - let alone the other things required.
As you have the report it would seem that it is unreasonable to ask for more money.

I suppose it depends on how much you have already paid (for 10 circuits) and what future relationship with Open Rent you want.

I paid £129 (VAT included) for full EICR based on 4-bed property. Now adding 60% just because there was additional CU does not seem justifiable. I have used them for gas certificate for last 3 years and their service has been satisfactory and cost-effective as well. Can't comment on quality as I have not been present myself at the time of works.

I had asked the tenant to inform me when the Engineer arrives as I wanted to attend if possible. The tenant called me in the morning advising the Engineer was at the property. He called exactly 20 minutes later to advise the Engineer has completed the work and has left. The tenant also mentioned that the Engineer told him that everything was fine. I will double-check with him. Maybe he got confused between gas and electrical engineers.

In general to price based on unknown work, which clearly it is, is hard. I remember commenting when doing my C&G 2391 on how to do the inspection and test on a board within the time given was hard, and this was with a board where everything could been seen and no walking seem to remember around 45 minutes to an hour, if one considers a house with same attention as that board then looking at most of the day, and since you don't know how long one would need to leave the day free, one could not really do two in a day, as you don't know how long it will take. And you have to make safe before leaving, i.e. repair or isolate any C1's.

So in the main people charge a days wages, yes win some loose some, but that is get away early or still there at 10 pm.

All my inspecting and testing was in house, so when you had no pressing work, you did inspection and testing, and clearly if you have fitted a socket last week, you know it's OK, so much of the inspecting and testing was visual, just looking for damage, the same applies when you did the inspecting last time, much only requires a glance to see it has not been touched and one can ignore it.

However how ever you price, you have to say up front what it is, and if you price at £50 plus £10 per circuit that's the cost, or £130 per day, that's the cost, or any other method of pricing. You can ring in the middle of test and say I have found xyz do you want it fixing, but if your charging per consumer unit, then if there is two, you would need to either phone and get authorisation, or only test the one, or do second for free. Unless you have agreed as I often do with a MOT if under £50 just do it. Then can't really charge, however likely if I could not get through on the phone I would do whole job, and cross fingers I would get paid. As said can't really do two a day, so all I have lost is time.

Neither 30 minutes nor £129 is sufficient for a genuine EICR.

As said above, openrent/electrician have had your pants down, that eicr is clearly a work of fiction and a drive by test, the socket circuit ring end to ends are an exact result using a calculator, r1 x 1.67 = r2.
It is physically impossible to write out the top eicr pages, write out the db schedule of circuits, test the circuits correctly, write out the test results, carry out a visual for any non-compliances and do the job properly in half an hour, that is at least a 3 - 4 hour test you should of had done

It was stated earlier about replacing the upstairs lighting MCB with an RCBO. OK, but check the landing light isn't using a "borrowed neutral" with its phase coming from the downstairs lighting circuit and the neutral on the upstairs lighting circuit.