EICR Questions

[JohnW2]

There would be RCD protection on all household sockets, the way the form is filled in one can't tell if sockets are or are not protected, it states RCD which one would think means all below that line RCD protected but then fails to give tripping current or time.

I agree that we can't be absolutely certain, but I think that we can be all-but-certain that it's the two sockets circuits and the outside light circuit that are RCD-protected - both because of the 'layout' you mention above and the fact that an RCD IΔn is recorded for (just) those three circuits.

Furthermore, if only some circuits were RCD0-protected, it would have been daft in the extreme to choose two lighting circuits and a cooker circuit for that protection. Don't forget that the electrician said that some of the circuits were not RCD-protected, implying that some were.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Once one spots an error, how can you then trust anything on the form?

I had a discussion with my boss, if an electrician submits 250 PAT tests per day, and it turns out there is an error with one of the items tested, is the manager at fault rather than person doing the testing for not questioning how anyone can do that many tests in a day?

If one sees errors, then clearly there may be errors you can't see. I had missed the RCD operating current column with 30 mA clearly stated, so he has the ID of the RCD tester but not a single reading given.

If you take the PFC of 0.74 kA that is 0.31Ω it does not fit in with the readings taken, "there could be a neutral to Earth fault" but he records 500 MΩ not >500 MΩ you note, seems odd all readings the same?

However sure one can pull any certificate apart, the wiring must look rotten, I would not permit surface mounted cables in my house, garage OK but not house, so maybe he thought this is a really easy job swapping a CU with all surface mount cables, lets go for it?

 

[JohnW2]

Once one spots an error, how can you then trust anything on the form?

As I said, one cannot be absolutely certain - but one can apply common sense in order to get as close as possible to certainty.

If you accept that 'some' (but not all) of the circuits are "not RCD-protected" (i.e. that some circuits are RCD-protected), can you suggest a particularly credible way in which the circuits could be arranged other than as I have suggested (i.e. with the two sockets circuits and outside light circuits RCD-protected)?

Kind Regards, John

.

 

[ericmark]

It does seem odd that a 9 year old consumer unit will not take RBCO's. So it would seem likely done more than 9 years ago, or the electrician is inventing some work for himself.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

it's annoying to pay for the same thing again

Hit him now with a "small-claims" for re-imbursement.

Even if you get nowhere you might **** him off and burn up some of his time.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The test sheet is inaccurate , it says you don't have RCD's but lists RCD tripping currents of 30mA, which is a nonsense.

It lists 30mA for some circuits. And N/A for some circuits.

As in

I was told “some circuits don’t have an RCD...”

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Advice to all - whenever you ask donrkebab any "awkward" questions (i.e. ones which he suddenly realises he can't answer without admitting he was wrong), or make any observations which he wishes would just go away, he always tries some kind of deflection like:

I have no idea what you are talking about, and even less interest.

 

[ericmark]

Clearly donrkebab made a mistake, however so did I, I would have expected to see columns for RCD data to be in same area of the form, and I missed the 30 mA entered as RCD size.

However there should have been entries in the last three columns. I am sure Niceic would take action over what is clearly wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

It does seem odd that a 9 year old consumer unit will not take RBCO's.

Unless I've missed it. I don't think anyone has suggested (explicitly) that the CU won't take RCBOs - as you say, it very probably woild.

So it would seem likely done more than 9 years ago, or the electrician is inventing some work for himself.

Yes ... either inverting work for himself OR sincerely believing what he has said and recommended, out of sheer incompetence and lack of knowledge.

Kind Regards, John

 

[WhydidIstart]

Hi, thanks for everyone's comments. Looking at the consumer unit there's the main switch followed by cooker and 2 lighting circuits that don't appear to have RCD protection then an RCD and then the 2 rings and outside light which do appear to have RCD protection.

Regarding the testing, I wasn’t there when he did the work, but someone else was and they said he was there for about half an hour. It’s a fairly small ex-council house and I would describe the electrical installation as standard / basic – i.e. no outbuildings, minimum of built in appliances, etc. Does 30 mins sound reasonable to do the EICR?

Once one spots an error, how can you then trust anything on the form?
If you take the PFC of 0.74 kA that is 0.31Ω it does not fit in with the readings taken, "there could be a neutral to Earth fault" but he records 500 MΩ not >500 MΩ you note, seems odd all readings the same?

He said “some circuits don’t have an RCD so there could be a neutral to Earth fault so the electricity could come back out and electrocute me” after I seemed a little sceptical of needing a new consumer unit for £600. He seemed to be saying a N-E fault could occur in the future, which is why I needed the new consumer unit and not that there was a N-E fault now, as far as I could tell.

Yes ... either inverting work for himself OR sincerely believing what he has said and recommended, out of sheer incompetence and lack of knowledge.

I got the impression he was looking for work.

I think everyone has agreed that the 2 recommendations either shouldn’t be on there at all, or should be C3 “improvement recommended” which is good in terms of the installation being ok, but I still have the EICR form that says it is “unsatisfactory” so if I come to sell the house soon I imagine the “unsatisfactory” form is what people will focus on

 

[JohnW2]

He said “some circuits don’t have an RCD so there could be a neutral to Earth fault so the electricity could come back out and electrocute me” after I seemed a little sceptical of needing a new consumer unit for £600. He seemed to be saying a N-E fault could occur in the future, which is why I needed the new consumer unit and not that there was a N-E fault now, as far as I could tell.

Yes, I imagine that's what he was saying - but, as you have been told, it's total nonsense, most certainly does not warrant a C1 (if any coide at all - even C3 would probably be debatable). As said, he's either (essentially fraudulently) trying to create work for himself or is seriously incompetent.

I think everyone has agreed that the 2 recommendations either shouldn’t be on there at all, or should be C3 “improvement recommended” which is good in terms of the installation being ok....

As above, certainly for the CU. However, to be fair, we know nothing about the other finding/recommendation ("bathroom light needs improving"), so don't really know whether that was in any way justified or not.

... but I still have the EICR form that says it is “unsatisfactory” so if I come to sell the house soon I imagine the “unsatisfactory” form is what people will focus on

People do not usually have EICRs to present to a potential buyer, so I'm by no means sure that you would be under any obligation to admit that it had even been done. If/when you sell the house, you will be asked if any electrical work has been undertaken since 1st January 2005 (and for any details/paperwork that is available, if the answer is yes) - but I don't recall any questions about inspections. Particularly if another electrician tells you that the codings and recommendations on the EICR are incorrect, such that the the report is misleading (and possibly fraudulent), then I'm far from sure that you would be under any obligation to admit that the EICR had even been undertaken - but you obviously would be best advised to seek legal advice about that at the time.

In the meantime, there's certainly no harm to come from complaining to NICIEC, and if they upheld your complaint (which didn't ought to be difficult, certainly in relation to the CU), they might 'insist' that a corrected/revised EICR is issued.

Kind Regards, John

 

[WhydidIstart]

Hi, ok thanks. I have sent a polite email to NICEIC enquires email address saying following an EICR I was told I must have a new CU due to no RCD on cooker and lighting circuits, however this doesn't seem to be the opinion of other electricians or the Best Practice Guide, or BS7671. Also that there are other concerns about the report such as missing trip times for the RCD tests (thank you for noticing that).

I will see what response I get, although I'm not overly optimistic. However if this guy is doing this for every installation he sees, I feel it should be reported to make things fairer for the decent hard working honest people who aren’t adding on unnecessary work.

 

[JohnW2]

Hi, ok thanks. I have sent a polite email to NICEIC enquires email address saying following an EICR I was told I must have a new CU due to no RCD on cooker and lighting circuits, however this doesn't seem to be the opinion of other electricians or the Best Practice Guide, or BS7671. Also that there are other concerns about the report such as missing trip times for the RCD tests (thank you for noticing that).

Yes, that sounds very reasonable.

I will see what response I get, although I'm not overly optimistic. However if this guy is doing this for every installation he sees, I feel it should be reported to make things fairer for the decent hard working honest people who aren’t adding on unnecessary work.

I totally agree. Either deliberately or through incompetence, this guy has provided you (hence, as you say, potentially many others) with a totally unsatisfactory/unacceptable service, and has documented it on NICIEC forms (thereby 'implicating' them). One would hope that NICIEC would be very interested/concerned, but who knows?! Do let us know how they respond!

Speaking personally, I can think of no situation in which "upgrading a CU {particularly a relatively modern one} to current regs" could (unless the CU were physically damaged) ever be a C1 (or probably even a C2).

Out of interest, what was his problem with the bathroom light?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I still have the EICR form that says it is “unsatisfactory” so if I come to sell the house soon I imagine the “unsatisfactory” form is what people will focus on

Don't show it to them then. Unless they ask if you've had the electrics inspected - now that you have you'll have to say so.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

One would hope that NICIEC would be very interested/concerned, but who knows?!

Sadly we do, pretty much.