Consumer Unit OK?

[Iggifer]

No problem.

If your typing fingers had obeyed you and typed "1.7", you probably would have noticed that what they recorded was '1.5 times' - which might possibly suggest that not only didn't they measure R2, but that they calculated it using the same incorrect figure that you actually typed! For them to have actually measured R2 as only 1.5 times R1 (or Rn), for both circuits, would seem to be rather stretching likely co-incidences!

Kind Regards, John

I think the fact I’d read them as 1.5x confused me and caused me (incorrectly) to assume that was the factor.

@jagillham if I’m honest the NICEIC probably won’t be all that bothered - as far as they’re concerned the figures could be accurate. And to an extent, an installation certificate is like an MOT, it’s only really accurate at the time it was testing. Readings can and do change over time so even if it was retested and different readings obtained - it’s entirely speculation that’s the figures are fictional. A pretty safe speculation, but speculation nonetheless

 

[jagillham]

Thank you both once again.

In simple terms then, what has potentially been missed if as suggested the test results are made up. And, also what gain would there be for the electrician to not do the required test?

 

[JohnW2]

Thank you both once again. In simple terms then, what has potentially been missed if as suggested the test results are made up.

It is extremely likely that nothing significant has been missed. However, that's a bit like saying that it is unlikley that much would be missed if MOT testers made up results of tests of a vehicle's braking system (rather than undertaking the tests) - since the great majority of braking systems are fine!

The main worry about dodgy looking paperwork is that is suggests an attitude to work (absence of conscientiousness) that may carry over into the quality and carefulness of the electrical work that they do.

And, also what gain would there be for the electrician to not do the required test?

A very small saving in time. Laziness.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I think the fact I’d read them as 1.5x confused me and caused me (incorrectly) to assume that was the factor.

Yes, I suspected that was the case.

To be honest, it was only at the eleventh hour, just before I pressed the "Post Reply" button. Up to that point, I had been suffering from a similar "confusion" to you - since it did, indeed correspond to what had been recorded on the form, when I read your "1.5", I subconsciously accepted it as correct!

Kind Regards, John

 

[jagillham]

The main worry about dodgy looking paperwork is that is suggests an attitude to work (absence of conscientiousness) that may carry over into the quality and carefulness of the electrical work that they do.
A very small saving in time. Laziness.

Fantastic news as the same chap installed the boiler at the same time. Even less reason not to have a dedicated ring for the boiler.

What's my remedy here? Could I get somebody in to retest... and how bad (expensive!) could whatever was missed be?

This all annoys me massively. The garden and house (on paper) is perfect for us. But, who the hell does a "full rewire" on a 3 bed semi, installing a grand total of 11 plug sockets.

Our mid terrace with knocked through lounge / diner I had 10 installed, and another 9 in the kitchen!

 

[JohnW2]

What's my remedy here? Could I get somebody in to retest... and how bad (expensive!) could whatever was missed be?

As I said, in the context of a re-wire, it's extremely unlikely that anything significant would have been missed if the testing was, in fact, 'deficient'. I would personally be inclined not to get too concerned about it - although I obviously haven't any idea how good or bad his actual electrical work may have been.

This all annoys me massively. The garden and house (on paper) is perfect for us. But, who the hell does a "full rewire" on a 3 bed semi, installing a grand total of 11 plug sockets.

Quite so. However, I presume that the electrician did (and charged for) roughly what he was asked to do, so it's probably the person who commissioned the work who would appear to have been very much 'working to a budget'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

Is the 'points served' literally the number of sockets on that ring?

Yes, that's exactly what it is. Quantity of sockets, or lights, or whatever else is connected to the circuit.

Should there also be a certificate from the council / building control?

It should have been notified, either directly to building control or more likely via NICEIC. There should be some document either from NICEIC or building control confirming it was notified.

Is there any reason to run a single neutral wire into the consumer unit like has been done?

No, and even if there was, it should not be exposed in the way it is.

The 'rewire' appears to be the absolute minimum of an installation and was obviously done down to the lowest possible price rather than to any kind of specification.

In the kitchen photo, the top of the extractor is missing, and if what's in the oven space is an outlet plate top left and the cable then disappearing into the wall in the centre, the rest of the cable concealed in the wall will not be in an appropriate zone, and therefore does not comply.

On the test results, Zs and Ipf cannot both be correct.
A Zs of 0.17Ω would mean Ipf being at least 1.4kA - very far from 0.770. Given the supply arrangement in the original photos, 0.17 is unlikely.
(Zs in this case is actually Ze, as there is only one board. Certificate appears to be designed for a multiple board installation ).

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I said, in the context of a re-wire, it's extremely unlikely that anything significant would have been missed if the testing was, in fact, 'deficient'. I would personally be inclined not to get too concerned about it - although I obviously haven't any idea how good or bad his actual electrical work may have been.

You should refresh your memory by looking again at the photos in post #1. They do not augur well.

who the hell does a "full rewire" on a 3 bed semi, installing a grand total of 11 plug sockets.

Quite so. However, I presume that the electrician did (and charged for) roughly what he was asked to do, so it's probably the person who commissioned the work who would appear to have been very much 'working to a budget'.

Is it possible that the EIC records the number of sockets he added?

 

[JohnW2]

You should refresh your memory by looking again at the photos in post #1. They do not augur well.

I probably wasn't clear enough. I meant that we couldn't know how good or bad was the electrical work which we haven't seen (even though we might well guess!). The OP was expressing concern over things which may have been 'missed'.

Is it possible that the EIC records the number of sockets he added?

Who knows, but I would have thought that a 'full rewire' would normally be 'starting from scratch', not 'adding' to an existing installation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Who knows.

I just wonder if the guy who did it thought that even though he had replaced all the cabling, he only needed to account for the sockets he added, not ones already there.

 

[jagillham]

Who knows.

I just wonder if the guy who did it thought that even though he had replaced all the cabling, he only needed to account for the sockets he added, not ones already there.

It's all "new" as the kitchen wiring is all for the new (at the time) extension.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So what was "rewired"?

 

[jagillham]

So what was "rewired"?

I wasn’t very clear there, what I meant was everything on that ‘kitchen’ ring is new, as that whole room was not there pre 2015.

 

[John D v2.0]

I think the problem is we have no confidence the guy did rewire the whole place or that he did any testing. We also don't know of any subsequent modifications.
As a result we have to assume that the electrical installation may have latent faults and apart from a visual inspection of the photos, the real story will come from some actual testing.
Since the OP isn't able to do that I'd recommend to put his mind and safety at rest he should get an eicr inspection and test done to find out what problems there really are.
That in theory should be done relatively routinely anyway, and shouldn't be hugely expensive especially assuming he really only has 4 circuits.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the problem is we have no confidence the guy did rewire the whole place or that he did any testing. We also don't know of any subsequent modifications. As a result we have to assume that the electrical installation may have latent faults and apart from a visual inspection of the photos, the real story will come from some actual testing.

Indeed.

Since the OP isn't able to do that I'd recommend to put his mind and safety at rest he should get an eicr inspection and test done to find out what problems there really are. That in theory should be done relatively routinely anyway, and shouldn't be hugely expensive especially assuming he really only has 4 circuits.

Again indeed. However, I imagine that, from the OP's point of view, the main question is probably whether it is worth incurring any significant costs on this, particularly given that there may also be uncertainties about the building work on the extension. He may therefore be considering walking away from the prospective purchase.

If he remains otherwise keen on the property (and no building issues emerge), then, as you say, an EICR would probably be appropriate. If the installation really is as simple/limited as it appears, even replacing the whole lot would probably not be all that expensive (in the context of the big picture of house purchase) - but he could (and probably would) use the costs of any identified required remedial work as a negotiating point as regards the purchase price.

Kind Regards, John