EICR Faults

[Murdochcat]

Plastic CU = C3
High Ze = FI

Unsatisfactory due to the 2nd item

I would challenge the spark on the CU coding

And when was the last inspection?

 

[JohnW2]

Plastic CU = C3 ... ... High Ze = FI ... Unsatisfactory due to the 2nd item
I would challenge the spark on the CU coding

S would I. However, as I've said, the problem is that, if a C2 has been given for the plastic CU, the legislation does not appear to offer any mechanism for appeal/challenge - so (if there is a tenant in the property) the law would requite that C2 to be 'remedied' within 28 days.

 

[jeeves]

Thanks for all your help and inputs.

The previous inspection was 5 years ago (May 2020) and was considered satisfactory. The report then said it is TN-S earth.

There were 4 C3s only, one of which was that CU is plastic. (Other C3s were cable core colours, switch line not identified and absence of safety electrical notice).
No mention of Ze, but Zs was recorded at 0.3Ω

The cu is in the cupboard under the stairs btw.

 

[ericmark]

I would agree with @Murdochcat that is how I would code it. However, the problem is it is up to the inspector. Code C1 is easy, dangerous, so exposed live part, but nearly every code C2 could be coded C3, as the inspector has to may the client aware of potential problems, I was going to say faults, but it is not really a fault, I have never seen the old plastic Wylex fuse box go on fire, the problem was the new type MCB had terminal clamps with some makes, where it was easy to get the tongue of the buss bar wrong side of the clamp, so it only pushed on the buss bar, it did not clamp it, good makes forced the clamp open so could not get it wrong, but not all, and instead of addressing the real problem, there was a knee jerk reaction by the London fire brigade. Which in turn caused the change to metal consumer units.

“electrical safety standards” means the standards for electrical installations in the eighteenth edition of the Wiring Regulations, published by the Institution of Engineering and Technology and the British Standards Institution as BS 7671: 2018(3); - (3) ISBN-13: 978-1-78561-170-4. Copies can be obtained from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, Michael Faraday House, Six Hill Way, Stevenage SG1 2AY.

This is the stumbling block. It is followed by

3.—(1) A private landlord(1) who grants or intends to grant a specified tenancy must—
(a)ensure that the electrical safety standards are met during any period when the residential premises(2) are occupied under a specified tenancy;

So we are looking at the statement I reported in #8 does the regulations say it needs upgrading? This has come up many times, where during a build, the regulations have changed, and to comply with the new, would require ripping out what has been installed before it was ever used, but the regulations are very careful to say "design" so it is down to date designed, not the date commissioned. Remember things like Heathrow T5 can take years to build. And they have the same regulations as ones house.

The problem arises where something is clarified, and it turns out the designer miss read the regulations, but that is not the case here. The inspector has to consider is any non compliance a potential danger to personal, not equipment, so lack of a surge protection device is not a danger to personal.

However what about loss of lighting? This has been argued about many times.

Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to: (iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit

clearly if there is a general power cut, then one will loose lights, can't stop that, and use of simple plug in torches

can remove the danger, but to have lights on the same RCD as sockets for that room, can be argued as a potential danger. So if we group upstairs sockets with down stairs lights, this was considered as OK at one time, so a fault on a socket circuit will not plunge one into darkness, getting a shock is bad enough, without also loosing lights at the same time.

But the problem was, many homes the sockets are split side to side of the house, so any failure, one is not temped to run extension leads up/down stairs. But lights still split up/down, so it is impossible with just two RCD's to arrange that lights don't fail with sockets in the same room.

At the same time as we went for metal consumer units, we also started to fit RCBO's which is a RCD and MCB combined, this does stop the danger of a lighting circuit failing with the sockets circuit. And this is one of the items clarified in latter editions of BS7671, yes, if you altered the design of the system slightly by adding RCBO's to lighting circuits, this would get around the problem, but that means altering the design, so then it has to comply with todays regulations.

Sometimes one just has to accept easier to just do as the EICR says, to argue can make it worse.

 

[JohnW2]

The previous inspection was 5 years ago (May 2020) and was considered satisfactory. The report then said it is TN-S earth. .... There were 4 C3s only, one of which was that CU is plastic. (Other C3s were cable core colours, switch line not identified and absence of safety electrical notice).

Thanks

No mention of Ze, but Zs was recorded at 0.3Ω

There should be a Zs for each circuit. However, it is impossible for Ze to be greater than any Zs, so if any of the Zs were 0.3Ω, then Ze could not have been higher than that - which is plenty low enough for TN-S.

Do I take it that, in the recent EICR, the plastic CU (and 'High Ze') have been given C2s?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

the legislation does not appear to offer any mechanism for appeal/challenge

It does, you can appeal to LABC, good luck with that.

 

[JohnW2]

It does, you can appeal to LABC, good look with that.

I don't think the (English) legislation has any mechanism to appeal against the 'EICR' findings.

As far as I can see, the only sort of appeal open to a landlord relates to appeal against a "remedial notice" issued by an LABC - which they would issue if they believed that the landlord was in breach of his duties (to have inspection undertaken and to have any consequent 'remedial work' undertaken within 28 days).

Have I missed something?

 

[jeeves]

Thanks

There should be a Zs for each circuit. However, it is impossible for Ze to be greater than any Zs, so if any of the Zs were 0.3Ω, then Ze could not have been higher than that - which is plenty low enough for TN-S.

Do I take it that, in the recent EICR, the plastic CU (and 'High Ze') have been given C2s?

Kind Regards, John

There's a Zs at the board which is 0.3

and then for each circuit there's a max Zs recorded. All in the range of 0.39 - 1.61 and significantly less than the max permitted Zs column

In the recent EICR I don't have a report, only a quote for work to be done to make it pass.

 

[jeeves]

My main concern is whether it's worth getting another EICR from a different electrician. If the metal upgrade is a requirement then fair enough I'll have it sorted but just don't like to feel I've been diddled. The previous electrician has moved areas sadly.

If most EICRs would classify it as C2 and needing done then I'll stick with the current guy and let him upgrade.

 

[JohnW2]

There's a Zs at the board which is 0.3

Oh, fair enough - that is to all-intents-and-purposes the same as Ze.

and then for each circuit there's a max Zs recorded. All in the range of 0.39 - 1.61 and significantly less than the max permitted Zs column

Fair enough.

In the recent EICR I don't have a report, only a quote for work to be done to make it pass.

If by "pass" he means to have nothing worse than C3, then the implication presumably must be that he's given C2s to thiose things?

However, this is where one of the problems with this legislation arises. IF you have a tenant in situ then, as soon as you have had an EICR undertaken, the legislation theoretically requires you to provide the tenant with a copy of the report (and also to the LABC 'if requested'), and that triggers the requirement to have any necessary remedial work undertaken with 28 days of the inspection. You could, of course, ignore that, pretend the EICR had not been done and then get another done - but it's not for me to suggest that

However, I do think that you first ought to have a conversation with the electrician, to ascertain what he proposes to do about the "High Ze" (and how 'high' it actually is) and, if he's given the plastic CU a C2, 'argue' with him about that (and, of course, to get a report!)

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If most EICRs would classify it as C2 and needing done then I'll stick with the current guy and let him upgrade.

It's clearly NOT a C2. New rules do not make things become "potentially dangerous".

However, as I have said, even a C3 (improvement recommended) seems to be enough in a landlord safety report to mean that you should implement the improvement.

 

[Murdochcat]

However, as I have said, even a C3 (improvement recommended) seems to be enough in a landlord safety report to mean that you should implement the improvement.

Disagree 100%

 

[pete01]

How would renting a house out need improvement but if the owner lives in it it's safe?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Disagree 100%

Ok. I hope you are right.

 

[EFLImpudence]

How would renting a house out need improvement but if the owner lives in it it's safe?

Have you not noticed? There is a campaign against private landlords.