EICR follow up

[ericmark]

Picture one shows missing screws and the green at edge of switch likely copper oxide which may result in a shock if used with damp fingers. Although unless one can measure the leakage it would be hard to condemn although I would ear mark it for a change.

Picture two missing earth sleeve and butchered ceiling rose I would assume you have removed cover for picture, however no real problem.

Picture three earth sleeve missing but no real problem.

Picture four rings alarm bells seems like it is a ring with spur coming off it, earth sleeve missing and live wire showing where it is not been stripped to correct length or inserted fully in the terminal, what I can’t work out is if rubber or plastic cables.

Picture five a bit untidy but can’t see any real problem.

Picture six they look like re-wire-able fuses to me? Two problems, one they are only permitted where a instructed or skilled person is in control because wrong size fuse wire could be used, and two likely asbestos is used in the fuse holder. So needs replacing.

Picture seven the lid with instructions see nothing wrong.

Picture eight cracks and burn marks on sockets clearly needs replacing.

In the main rubber cables will give poor insulation resistance readings so I would be looking at the readings taken before worrying unduly about cables. Missing earth sleeve is wrong but would not really be worried about it, so all in all a few new sockets and switches and a new consumer unit seems about it. Had the consumer unit been the Wylex type where you can swap the re-wire-able fuse for either a cartridge or MCB I would not be worried about the consumer unit. However likely asbestos in fuse holders and not being able to change to even a cartridge type I would say that distribution board needs changing for a consumer unit which would also mean RCD protection would be added.

If you want to do some DIY work the question is before or after the new consumer unit. If done before then it will stop the electrician wanting to change things before signing off consumer unit but if you make an error the chance of a shock is far higher, if you do it after the change then the electrician’s tests are no longer valid but far safer for you. Next is type of consumer unit, two RCD’s and MCB’s or all RCBO’s latter is better former is cheaper.

 

[sparkwright]

Very early Tenby light switch.

 

[securespark]

Eric:

Picture 1: isn't that di-isoctyl phthalate? (AKA green goo?)

 

[NickB_99]

I will concur that in my estimation, the original install dates to around 1968.

Is your house in the SK postcode area? I'm sure I have visited it during the years 2005-12!

Thanks. Yes, it is SK postcode area

Eric:

Picture 1: isn't that di-isoctyl phthalate? (AKA green goo?)

I'll have another look later, pic was more into the back box rather than the contacts.

 

[JohnW2]

I disagree about the comma. With a comma there it is incomplete and doesn't make sense. Anyway, you cannot have 'no'...'and'

That is grammatically true. However ...

It should be: "no RCD protection for sockets nor circuits contained in a bathroom"

... I would say that that would be at least as ambiguous as the original. As with the original, it could still be taken to mean "no RCD protection for [sockets (anywhere) OR (circuits contained in a bathroom)]" OR "no RCD protection for [sockets OR circuits] contained in a bathroom". It could even be taken to mean "no RCD protection for sockets (anywhere) (and) nor (are there any) circuits contained in a bathroom".

I think a small tweak of your versions would do it... "no RCD protection for sockets nor for circuits contained in a bathroom".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

"no RCD protection for sockets nor for circuits contained in a bathroom".

Yes, the second 'for' is optional but I don't think it alters nor removes your ambiguity.
"(no RCD protection for sockets nor for circuits) contained in a bathroom".

However, as there are no sockets in the bathroom your perceived ambiguity is unfounded.

 

[ericmark]

We have seen the fuse box, we know there is no RCD protection full stop. No need to expand on that.

 

[NickB_99]

EICR -
Couldn't work out if I could upload a PDF to Diynot, so finally manged to convert the masked PDF into individual JPEGs.
Pages 1-10 below. Hope they are clear enough to read.

EICR page 1

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

EICR page 2

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

EICR page 3

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

EICR page 4

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

EICR page 5

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

EICR page 6

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

EICR page 7

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

EICR page 8

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

EICR page 9

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

EICR page 10

• NickB_99
• 7 Mar 2016

 

[Taylortwocities]

This will take a while to digest. But the very first error is on the very first item on page 2. He has supply type as TN-C. I very much doubt if you have one of those in a domestic property in the UK!

 

[Risteard]

-

I very much doubt if you have one of those in a domestic property in the UK!

And if he/she does it will be a breach of the Electricity Safety, Quality & Continuity Regulations and therefore illegal!

There are, needless to say, many, many other mistakes in the "report".

 

[Iggifer]

This will take a while to digest. But the very first error is on the very first item on page 2. He has supply type as TN-C. I very much doubt if you have one of those in a domestic property in the UK!

Page 2

The install is also apparently '1 phase 3-wire'
a BS88 Gg apparently only has a short circuit capacity of 6kA now
Nominal voltage has returned to 240v - must have missed that memo
Main Earth apparently 10mm with 25mm line tails

Page 4
LOADS of stuff missing from the top
Barely bothered to count any points served
CPC size is wrong for 6mm²
Not even a fuse rating for upstairs lights
All circuits wired in PVC/SWA?
No max disconnection times
No max Zs

Page 5
LOADS of stuff missing from the top
No BS:EN for circuit breaker
Attic sockets wired in PVC/SWA?
Test button functionality is N/A but trip times recorded
No IR readings or LIM
No max disconnection times

Page 7
4.18 should be N/A not C2

Page 9
5.17 should be a no judging by whatever is directly underneath that MEM board
5.18 is a tick, but he's flagged it up as a C2 on his reccomendations
6.4 is N/A but we know there's no RCD for the bathroom


I'm sure there's more on there that I've missed. Clearly a shocking EICR. Either from a paperwork point of view, or as is looking more likely, from an actual testing point of view

 

[Echo the husky]

There are, needless to say, many, many other mistakes in the "report".

Many Many Many mistakes.
It's unlikely you have a 1 phase 3 wire supply, would have been nice to see AC ticked. I see no RCDs, yet there are tripping times listed?

The whole report is a joke. I would expect my qualified supervisor to kick my arse if I ever handed in a report like that.

 

[endecotp]

very depressing.

question is, how many of the "plausible" bits like the insulation and conductor resistances are actually made up?

 

[Echo the husky]

The R1+R2 reading for the cooker is much higher than expected compared with all the other circuits. I probably would probably have stuck that down as an FI. No mention of the wildly different r1 and rn readings on the kitchen and upstairs ring. I would have also expected the cutout fuse to be system C not G (clip in). The main switch is also noted as a clip in fuse, motor rated, 2 pole.

Is that really a 2.5mm cable feeding the attic sockets via a 30A fuse? (no mention of that either) The cables shown in the photos are imperial not metric.

 

[securespark]

Thanks. Yes, it is SK postcode area.

Wow, yeah I thought I recognised it. It's sad but I don't remember the customers, just their installations!

Having said that, I've been to 1000's of customers in that time so while I recognise it, there is no way I could remember where it is!!

Re: report:

Dates seem muddled, 10 December and 14 December?

Did he put three wire because of the earth????

When I have done a report on imperial I have written both the imperial size and its metric equivalent on the form. With that in mind wouldn't the cpc of "2.5" cable of that imperial vintage be 1mm²?

Can't see where the tails go into the CU, but that could be an IP breach?

Basic insulation outside enclosure seen on bell tx: not mentioned on form.