1. Visiting from the US? Why not try DIYnot.US instead? Click here to continue to DIYnot.US.
    Dismiss Notice

EICR - C2 - circuits 1 and 2 low insulation resistance reading

Discussion in 'Electrics UK' started by dpm_dpmartin, 12 May 2021.

  1. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    48,615
    Thanks Received:
    3,189
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Everything you say is correct, and everything you have been told here is correct.

    As has been said, there is a limit to how high a resistance these meters can measure, so it's totally reasonable and expected that willone see results recorded as ">1000", ">500", ">499" etc. This is what mine shows when measuring 'air' (with 1000V) ...
    upload_2021-5-13_13-0-21.png

    However, for anything below the ceiling of what the meter can measure, it gives an actual measurement. This is what I saw when I 'breathed onto' a small piece of cloth for a few seconds (to make it slightly 'moist') and then measured it's 'insulation resistance' ...

    upload_2021-5-13_13-16-52.png

    ... so there's no reason why he could not have recorded actual figures for results less than 1,000 mΩ. The strange thing is that he has recorded actual figures for everything else on the EICRs you've shown us.

    The thing which (as you have agreed) seems ridiculous is that, when results are not ">1,000", he seems to have simply recorded "<1,000",despite the fact that results dramatically less than 1,000 MΩ (just 'a handful of MΩ) would be OK. As you have said, if he had used "<XXX" to indicate a 'fail', then that XXX should have been very small, probably 'single figures' (1, 2, 5), certainly not 1,000!

    I really don't think you can move forward until you have at least an idea of the ballpark of the actual results. If he tries to use the excuse that he did not record actual figures, he ought (particularly if he is recommending a 're-wire') to at least be able to remember whether "<1,000" was actually about 900, 500, 100, 50, 10 or 'less than 5' - or whatever!

    Kind Regards, John
     
  2. Sponsored Links
  3. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    48,615
    Thanks Received:
    3,189
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Arrrghhh - this nonsense again!
    upload_2021-5-13_13-27-39.png
    upload_2021-5-13_13-28-14.png
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. dpm_dpmartin

    dpm_dpmartin

    Joined:
    23 Dec 2007
    Messages:
    705
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Thanks. BTW - I had that "awaiting moderator approval" message once yesterday... I didn't have to do anything pro-active about it, after a few minutes it seemed to go through (maybe someone intervened in truth, but maybe not).

    I have decided I am not going to chase him up again today. I tried to get in touch yesterday and I need to ensure I'm calm and collected. I will follow-up tomorrow and the angle will be - 1) what were the actual readings, and 2) what is my option for any actual (necessary) remediation where the Tenant can remain put? I will report back here. Hopefully I can get somewhere without destroying a relationship.
     
  5. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    48,615
    Thanks Received:
    3,189
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I admire your sensitivities, but I think you're probably going to have to be a bit less 'soft'.

    As things stand, what you are being told is not simply "not quite right" - it's actually ridiculous. It's like being told that you house needs to be demolished and re-built because ">1% of the structural timbers are rotten". If ">1%" actually meant "95%", then the advice might be reasonable, but ... !!

    If you want to be 'gentle' with him, you could perhaps start by simply saying that you would like to 'understand better', and therefore would like to know "how much less than 1,000" the "<1000" results really were, or something like that (and then play things by ear, depending upon his response)?

    Kind Regards, John
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    48,615
    Thanks Received:
    3,189
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Our messages have 'crossed in cyberspace'!
    It's unfortunately not uncommon (all due to some seemingly 'dumb' rules applied by the software), but it sometimes can take a few hours for a message to be 'approved'/'released' - which is why I did what I did!
    As I just wrote, you may have to harden your approach. Indeed, if you cannot 'get some sense' out of him in relation to this matter then, except at a 'human' level, I'm not sure that it would necessarily be in your future interests to 'preserve the (working) relationship'.

    Even if the "<1000" figures really do relate to figures so low that some action is needed, it's extremely unlikely that 'a re-wire' would be the only (or necessarily a sensible) approach. Would you replace a car because there was a hole in its exhaust pipe?:)

    Keep us posted! If you can find out what the 'actual readings' were (at least approximately), may well be able to offer some further suggestions/advice.

    Kind Regards, John
     
  7. dpm_dpmartin

    dpm_dpmartin

    Joined:
    23 Dec 2007
    Messages:
    705
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Inarguable, really.

    I'll be back...
     
  8. securespark

    securespark

    Joined:
    11 Jan 2004
    Messages:
    37,137
    Thanks Received:
    1,288
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Have I missed a trick? Quite possible!

    I thought all the IR readings were >, not <.....?
     
  9. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    48,615
    Thanks Received:
    3,189
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Look at the EICR in post #5 ...

    ....... most of the circuits have IR recorded as ">1000". .... However, the two sockets circuits (which have been given C2s for this reason) have it recorded as "<1000".

    Kind Regards, John
     
  10. Sponsored Links
  11. flameport

    flameport

    Joined:
    10 Mar 2007
    Messages:
    9,912
    Thanks Received:
    1,985
    Location:
    Poole, Dorset
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    That is the main thing to obtain.

    Something else to consider - the first column (filled in with 1000s) is L-N, and that can only be done properly if all loads are removed from the circuit first. That means unplugging everything, switching off anything connected via FCUs, removing all lamps (light bulbs) in every room, disconnecting the wiring to PIR motion sensors, exterior lights with PIRs in them, LED floodlights and other permanently wired devices such as USB socket outlets, smoke alarms, integrated LED downlights, smart switches and all the rest.

    That is rarely done on an EICR as it takes far too long, and would involve dismantling large sections of the installation which could actually create problems.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. JohnW2

    JohnW2

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    48,615
    Thanks Received:
    3,189
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    True - but, to be fair, the 'second column' also bears identical figures to the first - so that the two sockets circuits have "<1000" in both columns, whereas both columns have ">1000" for all of the other circuits.

    However, exactly what do those two columns actually mean? The first is labelled "L/L L/N" and the second "L/E N/E". I presume that you're right in saying that the first represents a L-N measurement, so do I take it that the second relates to (L+N)-E, which is what I would have expected would normally be done for an EICR?

    upload_2021-5-14_0-30-41.png

    Kind Regards, John
     
  13. securespark

    securespark

    Joined:
    11 Jan 2004
    Messages:
    37,137
    Thanks Received:
    1,288
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    That is indeed the trick that I have missed...:oops:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. dpm_dpmartin

    dpm_dpmartin

    Joined:
    23 Dec 2007
    Messages:
    705
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I politely followed-up with the Electrician just now... I actually asked about the potential for remediation vs. a full re-wire (in an empty property) based on the low IR C2s, taking into account the Tenant's (entirely reasonable) position that will not allow me to obtain an empty property... so I simply cannot achieve what I'm being told to do.

    His reply, verbatim, was - "The c2 s are there for a reason ie rewiring required due to low insulation resistance readings , not my rules as we all have guidelines to work to pal" - this has somewhat depressed me. I've said to him that I'll "look into this further" and what that really means is that I'm now going to ask him about the actual IR readings, not the <1,000MΩ the EICR contains. More to come...

    Have you ever felt like you're being held to ransom? :D
     
  15. BS3036

    BS3036

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2007
    Messages:
    942
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Country:
    United Kingdom
  16. dpm_dpmartin

    dpm_dpmartin

    Joined:
    23 Dec 2007
    Messages:
    705
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    The Electrician has just refused to share the test results with me. He has come back and said - "Am not arguing over some readings the house wiring is well dated and feel free to get a 2nd opinion too . Anything less than the 1 meg is a fail so if it says less than thats cos it is" - and - "Get someone else to go do the test and i will transfer you the money back after i have had a copy of the new report."
     
  17. BS3036

    BS3036

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2007
    Messages:
    942
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I would guess that he doesn't have the figures. In my opinion the EICR is not complete without those figures and of course he didn't write 'less than 1MΩ' but 'less than 1000MΩ'. Whatever happens I think you would be well-shot of him as he doesn't seem to have any empathy, and is covering up his embarrassment with bluster. Not a helpful reply, I'm afraid.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
Loading...

Share This Page