Consumer Unit installed May 2015

[DetlefSchmitz]

Exactly.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Re the landlord bit, many letting agents won't take a property on without a recent (< 5 years) EICR- the agents i use justified it as an electrical MOT, evidence of being a responsible landlord and useful if the tenants bodged something in which later caused damage/injury.

 

[JohnW2]

Re the landlord bit, many letting agents won't take a property on without a recent (< 5 years) EICR- the agents i use justified it as an electrical MOT, evidence of being a responsible landlord and useful if the tenants bodged something in which later caused damage/injury.

As I think we've all agreed, that is probably sensible - but that's rather different from being (legally) 'required'.

'Something bodged in' by tenants is certainly an important issue although I would imagine that such would usually (albeit not always) be apparent without doing a 'full EICR' - or, at least, there would be enough in the way of 'suspicious signs' to indicate that a full EICR was advisable..

There's one aspect of EICRs which rarely gets discussed. Inspection, of any degree of extent or detail, is always fine (and harmless) but 'testing' is a somewhat different matter if it involves (as 'full testing' will) removing and re-installing conductors in some terminals - so I wonder how many problems have arisen as a result of loose/faulty connections caused by an EICR being undertaken ... and if that does happen sometimes, the more EICRs are done on an installation, the greater the risk. It was probably rather OTT, but I was 'brought up' with the notion that one should not repeat a screwed connection onto the same part of a conductor more than three times!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

As I think we've all agreed, that is probably sensible - but that's rather different from being (legally) 'required'.

'Something bodged in' by tenants is certainly an important issue although I would imagine that such would usually (albeit not always) be apparent without doing a 'full EICR' - or, at least, there would be enough in the way of 'suspicious signs' to indicate that a full EICR was advisable..

There's one aspect of EICRs which rarely gets discussed. Inspection, of any degree of extent or detail, is always fine (and harmless) but 'testing' is a somewhat different matter if it involves (as 'full testing' will) removing and re-installing conductors in some terminals - so I wonder how many problems have arisen as a result of loose/faulty connections caused by an EICR being undertaken ... and if that does happen sometimes, the more EICRs are done on an installation, the greater the risk. It was probably rather OTT, but I was 'brought up' with the notion that one should not repeat a screwed connection onto the same part of a conductor more than three times!

Kind Regards, John

Dismantling is strongly discouraged during periodic inspection and testing for precisely that reason.

 

[JohnW2]

Dismantling is strongly discouraged during periodic inspection and testing for precisely that reason.

That would clearly be desirable, if it were possible, but I wonder to what extent that is how things work in practice?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

That would clearly be desirable, if it were possible, but I wonder to what extent that is how things work in practice?

Kind Regards, John

To a very large extent. Minimum dismantling should always be exercised.

 

[JohnW2]

To a very large extent. Minimum dismantling should always be exercised.

Again, we are totally agreed that minimal (ideally no) dismantling is desirable. However, I'm still not sure how close to that ideal most people get. I would have said that some tests cannot really be done (at least, not directly) without some dismantling.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

The IET guide book said not sure it this has changed, a PIR (now called EICR) on domestic should be done every 10 years or change of occupant which ever is the shorter.

So the installation certificate is duplicated by the EICR I know that some parts of the installation certificate are not covered by an EICR but most is, and neither are required by law, the law requires a completion or compliance certificate neither of which show any test results, in theory the completion certificate should relate to either an installation certificate or an EICR which should be held by the local authority, but having tried to get copies I know this is theory only, and the LABC can't produce them.

I would assume the same is true of a compliance certificate, it should cross reference to another certificate which has the test results and signatures of persons issuing them, but from what I hear, the installation certificate is not sent to the scheme provider, and the person signing the certificate does not even need to be inspected at any time by the scheme provider, the firm is inspected from time to time, but know my son worked for a firm for 6 months as an inspector, and non of his work was re-inspected, it was simply assumed since he had C&G2391 he knew what he was doing.

So if the buyer wanted a certificate that badly then the LABC would need paying their fee, and they would send some one to do an EICR and would issue a completion certificate on the strength of the EICR and would then lose the EICR so there was no way to refer back to it anyway, so in effect collect their fee for doing nothing.

I am sure the solicitors are not daft, and know the completion or compliance certificate is a complete waste of money, and would only be interested in the installation, minor works, or EICR. As has been pointed out many times, the EICR can be a walk around, or an in-depth investigation, and the only way to know how deep is to be the person paying for the report, so it is really pointless for the seller to have the report done, although the buyer can only get it done once they have possession, so I seem to remember without the paperwork you have to pay for some insurance or have money held back subject to it passing, my daughter has just had money held back after 15 years, it was in her case for the roads, but same thing.

 

[JohnW2]

So if the buyer wanted a certificate that badly then the LABC would need paying their fee, and they would send some one to do an EICR and would issue a completion certificate ...

I'm not sure that they would issue a completion certificate for work carried out over four years ago, even if they had a recent EICR, would they? If the work wasn't notified at the time (as it should have been) one could go through a 'regularisation' process, but I think that's even more expensive than notification.

However, as I think you are implying, this is all really down to the buyer. In fact, years-old installation certificates, even if they were available, would be of little value to a buyer, anyway. If the buyer wants reassurance about the present state/condition of the electrical installation, then he/she should commission and pay for an EICR - but, as a seller, I would have nothing to do with any of that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

Again, we are totally agreed that minimal (ideally no) dismantling is desirable. However, I'm still not sure how close to that ideal most people get. I would have said that some tests cannot really be done (at least, not directly) without some dismantling.

Kind Regards, John

What testing appropriate to periodic inspection and testing do you feel requires dismantling?

 

[JohnW2]

What testing appropriate to periodic inspection and testing do you feel requires dismantling?

It was really intended more as a question than I statement ("I would have thought that...") but I would have thought that (again ) the most obvious example would probably be 'ring circuit continuity' (which might sometimes be required as part of an EICR)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

What testing appropriate to periodic inspection and testing do you feel requires dismantling?

If one was to follow the guide lines, then one would remove a sample of sockets and switches and ceiling roses to check for grommets and sleeving, as to if this really helps not sure, the fault with daughters house was a screw had touched the neutral wire where poor stripping of cable had exposed copper, your unlikely to find this fault by removing socket fronts, in fact more likely to cause a fault.

However I would expect the consumer unit/fuse box cover removed and insulation resistance tested, this would have shown fault without removing any wires, the insulation resistance neutral to earth would have been zero MΩ, but unless the neutral wires are removed, it would not identify which circuit, as to if the circuit needs identifying is another question, once a fault is found, should further inspection be made, or is that left for the guy repairing the fault?

With a low insulation resistance one has no idea if due to some thing left plugged in, or part of the fixed installation, I note the electrical safety council say you should fail an inspection because of too many items hanging off one socket, and extension leads going through a door way, to my mind they are beyond my remit, if not fixed should not be tested with an EICR, and when considering the house is to change occupants clearly any faults caused by items plugged in will disappear on change.

It has been said no hatch into loft does not excuse not inspecting wiring in the loft, yet no one expects one to lift floor boards, so in real terms be it a locked door or no loft hatch no access means not inspected. Where I worked as electrical engineer even I did not have access to all rooms, the transformer room may have belonged to the company, but only Scottish power personal were allowed in the room.

Today with RCD on all circuits, any faults will likely trip a RCD and I can see that visual inspection is likely good enough before moving in to high light visual faults, but in this house it was missed, inspector saw a CU and assumed that supplied whole house, and to be fair did comment on the redundant fuse box in the ceiling, only point was, it was not redundant.

 

[Risteard]

It was really intended more as a question than I statement ("I would have thought that...") but I would have thought that (again ) the most obvious example would probably be 'ring circuit continuity' (which might sometimes be required as part of an EICR)?

Kind Regards, John

Yes I agree that ring final circuit continuity will require it, but generally just simple end-to-end testing and usually carried out at a socket-outlet.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes I agree that ring final circuit continuity will require it, but generally just simple end-to-end testing and usually carried out at a socket-outlet.

By definition, one could not undertake any 'end-to-end' measurements on an intact ring circuit (which has no 'ends' ) - so, no matter where you do the 'dismantling', you'd have to do some!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It has been said no hatch into loft does not excuse not inspecting wiring in the loft...

'Said' by whom??

Although it must be a fairly unusual situation, how on earth is one expected to inspect wiring in a loft which has no hatch - take a chainsaw to a ceiling, or maybe perhaps remove roof tiles and felt etc? Whoever it was who said that must have been rather daft - did he perhaps also say that all wiring buried in walls had to be 'exposed for inspection'

Kind Regards, John