Do i need to rewire or upgrade consumer unit for EICR??

[ericmark]

It therefore would seem that anyone (even a DIYer) could do the remedial work, provided only that a "qualified person" then confirmed hat the work had satisfactory remedied the defects identified in the initial inspection?

I have to agree, and if the DIYer is competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards, then his minor works certificate is all that is required. Not an installation certificate as if it requires an installation certificate then likely it will come under Part P for notifying.

The Emma Shaw case comes to mind, where the court said the electricians mate did not have the skill to press the button on the test instrument and record the results. This is the only case which comes to mind, where the courts have ruled as to who is competent, so the courts have ruled an electricians mate has not got the skill to use test instruments.

 

[JohnW2]

I have to agree, and if the DIYer is competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards, then his minor works certificate is all that is required.

Indeed, but I was going further than that, and suggesting that even if the person who did the work were not regarded as 'competent',it would seem that the legislation would only require that someone who was regarded as competent should confirm that the remedial work had been done satisfactorily.

Not an installation certificate as if it requires an installation certificate then likely it will come under Part P for notifying.

I'm not so sure about that since, at least in England, most electrical work is not notifiable. However, the above comments still apply, whether the person doing the work issue an EIC or Minor Works cert (or, indeed, no certificate at all).

Kind Regards, John

 

[jcaan]

Indeed, but I was going further than that, and suggesting that even if the person who did the work were not regarded as 'competent',it would seem that the legislation would only require that someone who was regarded as competent should confirm that the remedial work had been done satisfactorily.

I'm not so sure about that since, at least in England, most electrical work is not notifiable. However, the above comments still apply, whether the person doing the work issue an EIC or Minor Works cert (or, indeed, no certificate at all).

Kind Regards, John

Well thanks for that guys.

Some people will know I am actually studying electrical installation course but I'm fairly new. But I've already more or less completed my year in January.. I've just go my theory exams to do.

But my practical side I've completed it. There's a youtube channel I watch similar name to yours. I've watched and understood the continuity and insulation resistance testing for lighting and sockets. Which was a great help. So I've managed to smash through the practical side.


Theory and regulations isn't my strong point. I'll need to gain practical knowledge at some point by working alongside someone

So I guess my question then is. Could I just basically do the IR and C testing around the house. Is that part of the testing? I just want to use this to gain knowledge and understanding as well.

Ofcours I'll get an electrician to do the actual installations if needs be.

 

[jcaan]

I have to agree, and if the DIYer is competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards, then his minor works certificate is all that is required. Not an installation certificate as if it requires an installation certificate then likely it will come under Part P for notifying.

The Emma Shaw case comes to mind, where the court said the electricians mate did not have the skill to press the button on the test instrument and record the results. This is the only case which comes to mind, where the courts have ruled as to who is competent, so the courts have ruled an electricians mate has not got the skill to use test instruments.

Thanks for that I just replied above.

 

[Murdochcat]

OP

Bear in mind some contributors to this thread are not practising sparks ……

 

[jcaan]

OP

Bear in mind some contributors to this thread are not practising sparks ……

Thanks for that mate.

I just need some basic knowledge. Obviously in the future once I've gained knowledge I'd understand the regs side more.

But in terms of testing. I wanna give it a go. Just for practice purposes. I've got an old 1996 CU without RCD etc .. where shall I start with the testing?? E I know I will need a proper sparky to oversee or look at it properly when I get to that stage.

 

[Murdochcat]

Thanks for that mate.

I just need some basic knowledge. Obviously in the future once I've gained knowledge I'd understand the regs side more.

But in terms of testing. I wanna give it a go. Just for practice purposes. I've got an old 1996 CU without RCD etc .. where shall I start with the testing?? E I know I will need a proper sparky to oversee or look at it properly when I get to that stage.

You need to understand inspection and testing techniques ….. and how to complete the necessary EICR document and how to sensibly interpret the results


Inspect is using your eyes , test is inspecting the circuits ….

Too many drive by sparks don’t seem to do the inspecting …

 

[plugwash]

The family are thinking of either selling or letting the property out, which I presume would require a EICR cert.

Ok, first the basic's of how EICRs work.

An EICR compares the wiring in the property to *current* electrical safey standards, any deficiencies are then supposed to be given a code.

C1 - Immediately dangerous (roughly, you can touch live parts)
C2 - Potentially dangerous (roughly, something that falls significantly short of current safety standards but something else would have to go wrong for that danger to actually manifest)
C3 - Improvement reccomended (relatively minor issues)
FI - Further investigation, the inspector found an issue but was not able to determine which code is appropriate within the time/resources/access.

There are no hard and fast rules on what code to give each deficiency. However there *is* industry guidance and IMO it would be a foolhardy inspector who coded significantly more leniantly than the industry guidance.

The EICR as a whole is either "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory". A satisfactory EICR can have C3s, but it cannot have C1, C2 or FI.

My question is then that will require a new consumer unit ? Previous one doesn't have RCD or RCBO.

Under industry guidance, lack of RCD protection for a circuit can be either a C2 or a C3 depending on the specifics of the circuit.

If you have no RCD protection at all then that is likely to attract at least one C2. It is possible that a "spot fix" could be applied to only the circuits with C2s, but it is generally considered more sensible to replace the CU and clear up the C3s at the same time.

Kitchen and 1 bedroom has had downlight installed a 5 years ago by sparky. But based in what I've read recently, this will now fail the EICR? Is this correct?

Shouldn't do if they were installed competently and suitable for the environment they are installed in.

In general, EICRs don't care when work was done.

Also to have consumer unit UPGRADE with RCD would it a require a Full rewire?? Or can it be done without a rewire ?

If the wiring was correctly installed and is still in good condition there is no reason it cannot continue to be used.

I had a new consumer unit fitted and no rewire necessary. The downlights in the bathroom had to be replaced for a reason I forget

My understanding is that if a light is in the "bathroom zones" than it requires at least an IPx4 rating. If not in the zones then there are no specific requirements, but there is the catch all that "equipment must be suitable for it's environment". That leaves a lot of room open for judgement on the part of the inspector.

 

[jcaan]

Ok, first the basic's of how EICRs work.

An EICR compares the wiring in the property to *current* electrical safey standards, any deficiencies are then supposed to be given a code.

C1 - Immediately dangerous (roughly, you can touch live parts)
C2 - Potentially dangerous (roughly, something that falls significantly short of current safety standards but something else would have to go wrong for that danger to actually manifest)
C3 - Improvement reccomended (relatively minor issues)
FI - Further investigation, the inspector found an issue but was not able to determine which code is appropriate within the time/resources/access.

There are no hard and fast rules on what code to give each deficiency. However there *is* industry guidance and IMO it would be a foolhardy inspector who coded significantly more leniantly than the industry guidance.

The EICR as a whole is either "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory". A satisfactory EICR can have C3s, but it cannot have C1, C2 or FI.


Under industry guidance, lack of RCD protection for a circuit can be either a C2 or a C3 depending on the specifics of the circuit.

If you have no RCD protection at all then that is likely to attract at least one C2. It is possible that a "spot fix" could be applied to only the circuits with C2s, but it is generally considered more sensible to replace the CU and clear up the C3s at the same time.


Shouldn't do if they were installed competently and suitable for the environment they are installed in.

In general, EICRs don't care when work was done.


If the wiring was correctly installed and is still in good condition there is no reason it cannot continue to be used.


My understanding is that if a light is in the "bathroom zones" than it requires at least an IPx4 rating. If not in the zones then there are no specific requirements, but there is the catch all that "equipment must be suitable for it's environment". That leaves a lot of room open for judgement on the part of the inspector.

Wow I've had some fantastic responses today in this thread!

This post is very informative.

Would it matter if the Consumer unit was installed in 1996 and EIC was signed then aswell. Would this need updating too?
Or like you said that doesn't matter? There's a potential it could still pass the EIRC or maybe even get a C2 Or C3.

Secondly can an RCD just be put in an old consumer unit ?

 

[SimonH2]

Would it matter if the Consumer unit was installed in 1996 and EIC was signed then aswell.

When doesn't matter, what matters is what condition it's in now. If it had been a nice metal cased CU with RCDs (quite pricey back then) then it would (assuming no faults) still be complaint now. Since it doesn't have any RCDs then it's not compliant. IF the parts are still available then it could possibly be converted, but after this time that's unlikely and might cost nearly as much as a new board anyway.

As others have said, until the installation has been inspected & tested then it's all very much "how long is a piece of string".
If you have it inspected and it fails, then you can't rent it out until it's sorted. If you don't have it inspected then you can't rent it out. Until you do have it inspected, you won't know if you can or can't rent it out. I would suggest there's no point worrying about whether you can afford any remediation needed until you have some rent coming in - you can't legally get that rent flowing without the remediations needed so will have to find that upfront investment. Being a landlord isn't the "no upfront investment, sit back and watch the rent come in" activity that some people believe.

And don't forget you'll need to have the gas installation and any appliances inspected as well - that's an annual requirement but they have at least made that "MoT style" now so it can be done up to 2 months before expiry of the previous certificate without "losing" the difference in dates.

 

[JohnW2]

There are no hard and fast rules on what code to give each deficiency. However there *is* industry guidance and IMO it would be a foolhardy inspector who coded significantly more leniantly than the industry guidance.

There is - but as I understand it, not just one source of 'industry guidance', and not necessarily guidance with which all electricians would agree. For example (unless the guidance has changed?) are people giving C2s to plastic CUs under stairs?

In general, EICRs don't care when work was done.

I would think that 'they'ever 'care' do they. An EICR is what it says on the tin, a report on the condition of the istallation at the time of inspection - and that is regardless of how historical events have resukted in the current condition 'being as it is'?

My understanding is that if a light is in the "bathroom zones" than it requires at least an IPx4 rating. If not in the zones then there are no specific requirements ....

Indeed - but, in practice. lights are not very commonly as low as 2.25m above FFL, so commonly 'not in zones'

s, but there is the catch all that "equipment must be suitable for it's environment". That leaves a lot of room open for judgement on the part of the inspector.

Indeed - but (despite 'industry guidance') that remains a major issue in relation to many aspects of EICRs, not just this one.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Under industry guidance, lack of RCD protection for a circuit can be either a C2 or a C3 depending on the specifics of the circuit.

Anything given a C2 in circumstances which have not changed must mean that it was (considered) "potentially dangerous" when it was installed.

This cannot be the case therefore the "industry guidance" must be flawed.

 

[flameport]

Would it matter if the Consumer unit was installed in 1996 and EIC was signed then aswell.

The installation certificate would be applicable to what was installed in 1996.
If additions or alterations have been made since, then further documents should have been created for those when they were done.

Old documents do not need updating, they just record what was there at the time.

Secondly can an RCD just be put in an old consumer unit ?

In some cases yes - but it's not going to happen for a consumer unit which is approaching 30 years old.

There's a potential it could still pass the EIRC or maybe even get a C2 Or C3.

There is no 'pass' - it's either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory.

If there are no RCDs at all, then it's highly likely a new consumer unit will be required.
Even in 1996, RCDs were required for socket outlets that were likely to be used for equipment outdoors - which generally meant those on the ground floor and in garages/outbuildings.

 

[SimonH2]

Anything given a C2 in circumstances which have not changed must mean that it was (considered) "potentially dangerous" when it was installed.
This cannot be the case therefore the "industry guidance" must be flawed.

If you take that strawman to it's logical conclusion then every part of every installation is C2.
What has changed over the years (and wiring regs revisions) is attitude to risk. So just sticking with RCDs, go back long enough and just having stuff earthed so as to create protection by blowing the fuse in the event of a fault was considered "reasonably safe" - or probably with the technology of the day, ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practical (my emphasis)).
Now attitudes have changed, as has technology. As others have pointed out we no longer have (for example) gullible people going round checking the sockets at night in case electrical dribbles out of ones left switched on, instead we have people who use electrical stuff without a second thought and I suspect few even think about if there's any risk. Along with that, we have relatively cheap RCDs, so now ALARP means having RCD protection on almost everything.
So I would argue that stuff would not have been C2 "back when" because by the standards of the day it was considered "reasonably" safe. That same thing could be C2 simply because our attitudes to tolerability of risk have changed.

 

[JohnW2]

Anything given a C2 in circumstances which have not changed must mean that it was (considered) "potentially dangerous" when it was installed. ....
This cannot be the case therefore the "industry guidance" must be flawed.

We've been through this countless times.

The change in 'circumstances' which has occurred is in relation to 'our' (society's) view of what degree of "potential danger' is acceptable.

When I bought my first car, it was not considered to 'potentially dangerous'for a car which didn't even have seat belts to be 'allowed', and allowed to be driven.

When I was an inquisitive youngster, it was not considered too'potentially dangerous'for the house in which I lived to have light switches, the covers of which I could (and sometimes did!) unscrew simply by use of my little hands.

Societal attitudes to 'acceptable degrees of risk' have changed dramatically. Individuals will vary as to whether they feel that all these changes have been reasonable/necessary, or whether they feel that Nanny has been given too much of a free rein.

Kind Regards, John