can I replace mcb myself ?

[ericmark]

There was a famous case of three women throwing computers over board in a Scottish lock who claimed they had not committed a crime as they were stopping the launching of nuclear weapons which were illegal under international law and they actually got away with it.

I remember in collage being told as electricians we could in the heath and safety laws override the managing director in isolating dangerous machinery, not that I would ever try it, but there is a sting to the tail with domestic, and many a gas safe engineer has fallen foul of it, in that if we make a property uninhabitable we must locate alternative accommodation, it does not however say who must pay for it. So in heart of winter I can't simply say that heating is dangerous and isolate it, I have to ensure there is some where for the occupants to go.

I would guess with rental property that would mean a liaison with landlord and tenants to work out what needs to be done, one would hope that with something like a smashed socket it would simply be replaced. I know with one firm I was given an electricians mate, purely for safety, so if some thing was found which needed fixing immediately, one could stand guard while other got parts.

The government instructions do not say you must fix it, but do say you must be able it fix it to be class as qualified, as to locking off, locking the doors as you leave is still locking off, so with a unoccupied house, an inspector could lock up on leaving and simply report a code C1, and the 28 days rule is only in place when the property is occupied.

We assume common sense, however that is clearly not the case where some one with reduced mental ability is living at the property, be it a child or adult. So an EICR on commercial property is very different to domestic. And the rules have changed over the years, at one point it was near impossible to get a tenant out of a rented house, but it seems that has changed, but clearly with the floods you see people have to leave for their own safety, but what I am not sure about is who or how people are told to leave, I would guess emergency services, which are the council, but reading the new law it seems council can force repairs, this was a surprise, I could see how council could say your not allowed to rent the property until repaired, but it just seems wrong that they can do the repair and charge the landlord, however it seems they can.

 

[scousespark]

View attachment 206150 Thanks. here are the codes, there are 5 seperate consumer units

As nobody seems to be interested in the details you posted, these are my thoughts.
The shower CIRCUIT is nont compliant. The calculation is simply Ib <= In <= Iz.
Ib = load, In = MCB rating and Iz = tabulated cable current carrying capacity.
The shower is rated at 9600W @ 240V which equates to 40A.
The MCB should therefore be 40A or higher. The cable size should be 6mil (for a 40A MCB), but this cable can carry a max current of 47A. The 50A MCB is rated higher than the cable, so I would code it as C2 and recommend switching to a 40A MCB (as the inspector did).

The radials are a bit odd. There are 2 standard radials (A2 - 20A MCB with 2.5mil cable) or A3 (32A MCB with 4mil cable).
The oddity here is the 2 circuits supply on socket each.
The 40A breaker would be a C2 and the fix is to fit a 20A MCB. This allows you to extend the circuit using 2.5mil cable.
As there is only one socket on the 32A circuit, you can leave as is. The SO limits the load below 32A.
You cannot extnd this circuit using 2.5mil cable. You can install a 4mil cable and you stay compliant.
However, as you are looking to fit one 20A MCB, it would be a good idea to also replace both MCBs.

One comment on the EICR I have is that the missing blanks should be a C1. Doing it yourself would only save a few quid as most of the work quoted is fot the investigation for the items listed with an FI.

This EICR looks fine and there is no issue with referring to any guidance or confirming the report with the NICEIC. It's why the guides exist and why the NICEIC have technical helpline.

 

[scousespark]

View attachment 206150 Thanks. here are the codes, there are 5 seperate consumer units

As nobody seems to be interested in the details you posted, these are my thoughts.
The shower is nont compliant. The calculation is simply Ib <= Ib <= Iz.
Ib = load, In = MCB rating and Iz = tabulated cable current carrying capacity.
The shower is rated at 9600W @ 240V which equates to 40A.
The MCB should therefore be 40A or higher. The cable size should be 6mil (for a 40A MCB), but this cable can carry a max current of 47A. The 50A MCB is rated higher than the cable, so I would code it as C2 and recommend switching to a 40A MCB (as the inspector did).

The radials are a bit odd. There are 2 standard radials (A2 - 20A MCB with 2.5mil cable) or A3 (32A MCB with 4mil cable).
The oddity here is the 2 circuits supply on socket each.
The 40A breaker would be a C2 and the fix is to fit a 20A MCB. This allows you to extend the circuit using 2.5mil cable.
As there is only one socket on the 32A circuit, you can leave as is. The SO limits the load below 32A.
You cannot extnd this circuit using 2.5mil cable. You can install a 4mil cable and you stay compliant.
However, as you are looking to fit one 20A MCB, it would be a good idea to also replace both MCBs.

One comment on the EICR I have is that the missing blanks should be a C1. Doing it yourself would only save a few quid as most of the work quoted is fot the investigation for the items listed with an FI.

This EICR looks fine and there is no issue with referring to any guidance or confirming the report with the NICEIC. It's why the guides exist and why the NICEIC have technical helpline.

 

[plugwash]

As I said recently, given that those undertaking inspections for the purpose of this new legislation now have the 'power' to require (enforceable by law) that certain works be done, I think what we need is a situation in which people undertaking inspections for that purpose have to be 'licensed ' so to do, for there to be an effective appeals/grievance procedure in place, and for those who are shown to have incorrectly 'required' that unnecessary 'remedial' work should be done should have their licences revoked, for life.

And before we can do that we need an actual legal definition of what remedial work is or is not required.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The shower is nont compliant.

How can a shower be non-compliant?

The calculation is simply Ib <= Ib <= Iz.
Ib = load, In = MCB rating and Iz = tabulated cable current carrying capacity.
The shower is rated at 9600W @ 240V which equates to 40A.
The MCB should therefore be 40A or higher. The cable size should be 6mil (for a 40A MCB), but this cable can carry a max current of 47A. The 50A MCB is rated higher than the cable, so I would code it as C2 and recommend switching to a 40A MCB (as the inspector did).

Those are not the only considerations.

What is your view on Section 433.3.1 and therefore its purpose and consequences?

This EICR looks fine and there is no issue with referring to any guidance or confirming the report with the NICEIC. It's why the guides exist and why the NICEIC have technical helpline.

Why would a competent inspector need a guide or a technical helpline?

Surely their purpose is for the use of the (to be polite) unable to understand to determine what to do.


Why is it apparently always necessary for someone to write a book stating in their opinion what a straight forward short regulation actually means?

 

[JohnW2]

And before we can do that we need an actual legal definition of what remedial work is or is not required.

We do seem to have a 'legal definition', in as much the legislation appears to require the landlord to undertake whatever remedial work is indicated as being necessary on the inspector's report, whether the inspector is right or wrong in what his report 'requires' ....

... (4) Where a report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) indicates that a private landlord is or is potentially in breach of the duty under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and the report requires the private landlord to undertake further investigative or remedial work, the private landlord must ensure that further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person within—
(a)28 days; or (b)the period specified in the report if less than 28 days, starting with the date of the inspection and testing....

This is what results in what I referred to in my previous post as the considerable 'power' that the inspector now has (in relation to private rental property) - in essence, the landlord is now legally required to remedy, within 28 days, anything to which the inspector has (rightly or wrongly) given a C1 or C2 (both of which 'require' remedial work).

This is why the debates we've been having about EICR coding have become so important - since things like giving C2s for plastic CUs (maybe only if 'under stairs'!), or sometimes for having dual-RCD CUs can result in a legal requirement for the landlord to have fairly major work done which many of us would regard as probably 'unnecessary'.

So, as I said, I think we really need to find a way of preventing electricians continuing to undertake inspections for this purpose if they are shown to be giving C2s to things that many people would feel did not 'require' remedial action - and, as I said, some sort of 'licensing' is the only way I can think of which would allow that to be done.

Kind Regards, John

 

[boringoldcodger]

Living down to my moniker.

The shower is nont compliant. The calculation is simply Ib <= Ib <= Iz.

I assume Scousespark meant "The calculation is simply Ib <= In <= Iz".

 

[EFLImpudence]

...but that is for ensuring overload protection.

When overload protection is not required ('may be omitted' in regspeak) then those particular rules/regulations do not apply.