Another EICR Query

[Adam_151]

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.

Thats the way I read what hes trying to say, although the reg number (and the wording) seem a big mixed up. I generally word as "Lack of supplementry bonding to bath/shower room where conditions permitting ommision of this are not met - (C2)" although if the only change to made it comply would be to add RCD protection to a circuit that only supplies a light fitting that is either class 2, SELV, or having no accessible metal parts as installed (like a 2D fitting, its class 1, but its all plastic on the outside once the diffuser is in place) then I might be temped to down grade to a C3

Of course as you say, you'd have another C3 for the cirucit having no additional RCD protection, likely another for the same to concealed cable, and now one for domestic lighting without RCD protection (although I'd probably wrap that up with the concealed cable observation as one combined observation)

 

[Risteard]

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.

Ludicrously cheap for the job.

 

[winston1]

***Moderator note***

Unhelpful pedantry = post removed

 

[Dan Vittori]

Thanks all for your contributions. Very helpful.

Spoke to the tenant yesterday. He is still saying both Gas and Electrical engineer came in within 10 minutes of each other and didn't stay more than half an hour. Although he himself was not present at home but his partner was.

Just checked my correspondences again and it is not OpenRent but a company called Landlord Certificates Ltd who arranged the EICR. First time we used this company was through OpenRent and then subsequent engagement has been directly through their website without involving OpenRent. The rate I paid for EICR appears to be standard on their website. Just checked the credentials for the Engineer on NICEIC website and they are an approved contractor.

I am taking a local electrician (found through NICEIC website) to the property today to show the scope of the remedial work. Let's see if he has more to add.

 

[Dan Vittori]

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.

Thanks for your comment. The upstairs landing light is on a two-way switch. Will ask the electrician to check this.

If I am going to change both first floor and ground floor lighting circuits MCBs to RCBOs then will it still be an issue?

 

[EFLImpudence]

If I am going to change both first floor and ground floor lighting circuits MCBs to RCBOs then will it still be an issue?

Yes.

You will either have to rectify it - by running a new cable somewhere; e.g. between switches or from CU to one of the lights (hall or upstairs) depends how it is wired.

OR

Put both lighting circuits on one RCBO.

 

[Dan Vittori]

The upstairs landing light should be accessible through the loft. The ground floor light access would be tricky as all the first floor has laminate floorings.

If putting both lighting circuits on a single RCBO is a safe and legal option then it would be the most convenient (I think)

 

[endecotp]

I am taking a local electrician (found through NICEIC website) to the property today to show the scope of the remedial work. Let's see if he has more to add.

Tell him about the 30-minute EICR. If he were to re-measure the circuit impedances, and if they differed from those in your EICR, it would suggest a completely fake inspection.

Ask the tenants if they recall the electricity being turned off.

 

[Dan Vittori]

Hi All

Update from yesterday. Shared the full EICR report with the local electrician and took him to show the work. He looked around the house and opened the CU to check the feasibility of replacing MCBs to RCBOs.

1. He agreed that he can swap 3 MCBs for £105 all inclusive with all the paperwork. I think he was hoping to find some good reasons to replace the whole CU but couldn't.
2. The kitchen unit hole was unfortunately too small to see the presence of water MB. He was pretty relaxed about it and said he could trust me when I told him that it is present as I got the kitchen fitted in front of my eyes. It was a C3 anyway in the EICR. He did mention that there are some tests he can undertake to confirm the presence and continuity of MB. We didn't discuss the details or need of these tests.
3. The power socket feeding supply to the boiler in the cupboard was a surface mounted metal box with the T&E wire touching the edge of the hole. The wire insulation was in pretty good condition and there were no blurred edges as such (it was marked C2!). He offered to replace the box to a plastic one for £30. I told him that I will do it myself. As an afterthought, I will ask him to cut and fit a grommet instead as has been advised here.

He checked the possible issue with the first floor and ground floor landing lights by switching off individual circuits and testing lights and confirmed it was not a problem. He told me that he was satisfied in general with both CUs, meter cabinet and other electrical bits based on his visual checks. Advised me to install a heat detector in the kitchen as tenants normally don't take care of the smoke alarms. He was right as we tested the smoke alarm there and then and the battery had been removed.

I asked him how much time he thinks it should take to do the EICR for the property of this size. He didn't give a definitive answer but said that he is quite fast and tends to take readings on site and undertake calculations later on back at the office. I asked him if he could do a sample impedance test to check the EICR report for which he said that he will have to do anyway when he replaces the MCBs and will do for all circuits.

He did ask me if I need the EICR done again after the works as the current EICR is marked as 'Unsatisfactory' saying these are like MOT tests. When I showed reluctance, he advised me to check the building insurance conditions as some insurer may ask for a satisfactory EICR. He offered to do a full EICR for £160 if needed. I have done some quick reading afterwards and can't find any need for the EICR to be done again. Even the government website says that any recommendations included in the EICR need to be undertaken and evidence supplied to the tenants within 28 days.

I had taken the photo of the open CU and later realised that there is a spare 32A MCB fitted which is RCB protected. I was wondering if I can ask him to move the cooker circuit to this MCB instead (there is enough cable length).

In summary, I am intending to give him the work to replace 2 or 3 MCBs as needed and check all the circuits again for peace of mind. Will get him to add the grommet so that I have paper evidence. Not sure if I need to do more on water MB issue as it was marked only C3. Also what paperwork I should be expecting/asking (saw a forum discussion about MWC vs EIC).

Any comments or thoughts on above are welcome as before.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You will have a satisfactory EICR when the repairs are done and documented.

I would think you will get an EIC as there are not the right options on a MEIWC for what is being done - although any document with the correct information would be adequate.

 

[Risteard]

If he were to re-measure the circuit impedances, and if they differed from those in your EICR, it would suggest a completely fake inspection.

Depends by how much. One would not expect to attain identical results. Test equipment operates within tolerances, and impedances also fluctuate based on the supply.

 

[JohnW2]

Depends by how much. One would not expect to attain identical results. Test equipment operates within tolerances, and impedances also fluctuate based on the supply.

I'm sure that people reading endecotp's comment will have understood that he meant something like ".... if they differed appreciably from those in your EICR".

 

[Risteard]

I'm sure that people reading endecotp's comment will have understood that he meant something like ".... if they differed appreciably from those in your EICR".

I'm not so sure. Even many Electricians seem to have a bizarre belief that test equipment is 100% accurate without acceptable tolerances, and that the supply never fluctuates. So I don't share your optimism that this would be widely taken from that.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not so sure. Even many Electricians seem to have a bizarre belief that test equipment is 100% accurate without acceptable tolerances, and that the supply never fluctuates. So I don't share your optimism that this would be widely taken from that.

It's not specific to electricians or electrical measurements. If, in any walk of life, one talks about differences between repeat measurements of something, I would have expected any non-pedantic person to understand that meant 'differences beyond those explicable in terms of limitations of the measurement method and/or any changes in prevailing conditions'.

 

[Risteard]

It's not specific to electricians or electrical measurements. If, in any walk of life, one talks about differences between repeat measurements of something, I would have expected any non-pedantic person to understand that meant 'differences beyond those explicable in terms of limitations of the measurement method and/or any changes in prevailing conditions'.

The problem is that many do not appreciate that, even though it should be obvious.