failed eicr, whats the next step please ?

[AndyPRK]

The 32a Mcb hole is empty.
Pair could have been in there.

 

[ericmark]

Copper oxides are cupric and cuprous one is green and one is blue but looks black on cables it is normal and will not build up where clamped so only a problem when the cable is removed and refitted when it can result in a high resistance, it means there is moisture in the air. There does seem to be issues, giving a F1 code is not really acceptable when there is full access, the inspector is suppose to be trained and should not need to phone his boss for advice, if he needs advice then the boss should have attended in the same way I can't with pictures say OK or not OK neither can his boss.

There is a list of the qualifications required to do a landlord EICR I would be asking if the inspector was really qualified it is your responsibility to ensure the inspector is qualified, he may be able to do non rented property there is no law governing that, but for rented he has a criteria that must be met.

I look at that 40 amp MCB which you say is shower and question why two wires? In a ring final expect two wires, but not a shower, not saying is wrong, but it rings alarm bells. And the whole idea of an EICR is to ascertain if safe, not to say it rings alarm bells need to look further, that it what he is being paid to do, look further.

 

[SUNRAY]

looking again at this:

It looks like we can see the extent of the black is only on exposed metal.
The mucky deposit:

is not the usual dust I expect to see in a CU.

These added together convince me this is an atmospheric issue. How much black mould is there in the property?

 

[securespark]

I think the shower fault is more likely due to a faulty switch.

 

[ericmark]

I have been looking for the "check list certifying their competence." which a landlord should get signed, it is refereed to in the Guide for Landlords and the this says must be a qualified person but it seems likely the person needs a Level 3 Award in the Initial Verification of Electrical Installations and a Level 3 Award in the Periodic Inspection and Testing of Electrical Installations, which may be combined into one qualification. However yes we know it would be daft to do it without professional indemnity insurance, but I can't find a government web site, i.e. not some one advertising their scheme or services which lays out what should be in the check list.

Fair enough with a sole trader to become a scheme member he must have a minimum set of qualifications and the scheme operator says if that man is qualified, but for larger firms the firm is a scheme member not the individual in the firm, one would hope a firm would not send out some one who is not qualified. And I would say most would say C&G 2391 is the qualification required, however as said I have been to repair after an EICR and wondered if I was in the right building. And before it was made law, I could simply say he missed that, and that does not need doing, but as to how anyone can argue the inspector got it wrong I don't know, I suppose the one saying it is wrong must he higher qualified, so if I inspect a property and say some thing needs doing, and I have level 5, then it needs some one trained to level 6 to say I am wrong.

Already had this with my parents house, LABC wanted us to get an EICR done after we had completed the work, and we pointed out for them to say I have done it wrong, they would need to be higher qualified, and since I am level 5 you will need some one level 5 or above, who is on your books, at which point he backed down and said he would accept my signature.

The problem is an EICR is an opinion, not a fixed pass/fail, unlike a MOT there is not a list of exactly what passes and what fails, the inspector does use BS 7671 as a guide, but for example at the start of BS 7671 is states installations that passed with a previous edition are not necessary to be considered as unsatisfactory, and the whole book is open to interpretation, it is reasonably black & white for a new installation but not for an existing.

I expected to find google "English EICR checklist certifying their competence" and I would find a cheaklist, but this is not the case.

 

[EFLImpudence]

From the legislation:

“qualified person” means a person 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;"

There you go - anyone who is able to do it is "qualified".

 

[Gary111]

The 32a Mcb hole is empty.
Pair could have been in there.

Yes thats correct the pair is from that, theres only one going to the 40a

 

[Gary111]

I think the shower fault is more likely due to a faulty switch.

Yes it was thanks

 

[Gary111]

looking again at this:
View attachment 204780
It looks like we can see the extent of the black is only on exposed metal.
The mucky deposit:
View attachment 204782
is not the usual dust I expect to see in a CU.

These added together convince me this is an atmospheric issue. How much black mould is there in the property?

The property has had mould previously, its quite a damp flat.
I also noticed the conductors in the shower switch are dark at the ends, but clear under the earth sleeving.

Surely if the earths are also dark it doesnt indicate overheating ?

 

[Gary111]

 

[ericmark]

Dark indicates moisture, it is copper equivalent to rust. Getting copper hot gets rid of the oxide.

From the legislation:

“qualified person” means a person 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;"

There you go - anyone who is able to do it is "qualified".

So if the guy can't do the remedial work, or further investigation then he is not qualified. So a code F1 due to locked door, that's OK, or no loft hatch that's OK, but an F1 code because he does not know what to do and wants his boss to look at it, means he is not qualified to do the inspection and testing???

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yep, that's it.

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks, they gave “F1” code, “Further investigation to ascertain fault on circuit. on the black cables its “Further investigation to ascertain extent of thermal damage”

Ah, that's pretty sensible, then (for the blackened copper) - I might well have considered the same if it were me. It's so unusual for it to be widespread that I would certainly agree that one probably ought to get to the bottom of the explanation.

As for the IR and PIR, I would have thought that the obvious thing to do would be to disconnect the PIR and re-test the wiring at the time - rather than, by implication, say that someone has to come back and do that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

.... So a code F1 due to locked door, that's OK, or no loft hatch that's OK, but an F1 code because he does not know what to do and wants his boss to look at it, means he is not qualified to do the inspection and testing???

Potentially worse than that, given that not everyone is 'honest and scrupulous', even if qualified.

It would be possible for electricians to (possibly even 'repeatedly') give F1s for things that they could easily have 'further investigated' at the time of the EICR, but didn't (like the PIR possibly affecting IR readings in this case), thereby creating the need for subsequent 'further investigation', for which there would presumably be a charge.

I would have thought that the use of F1s should be restricted to those things which could not be 'reasonably investigated' at the time.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

As for the IR and PIR, I would have thought that the obvious thing to do would be to disconnect the PIR and re-test the wiring at the time - rather than, by implication, say that someone has to come back and do that!

Kind Regards, John

That is also what I would say, if he can't do the job, then don't even try. Yes I know the doctor can refer one to a specialist, but domestic installation is hardly rocket science, they were called house basher for years, as so little skill required.

Odd this has just come up between son and myself, he thinks I should do EICR's but no repairs, there are some who do MOT's in the same way, they will replace a bulb, but that is about the limit. However I said if you have a C1 it needs rectifying before you leave, be it isolate or repair, but it needs making safe, which could mean the property becomes uninhabitable, so unless I can do repairs, then I can hardly do an EICR. I could not switch off and lock off some ones lights and say you need to get some one else to fix them, it's not like a car you can't do without it for a few days. Yes OK can move into a hotel, but that assumes no special needs. So no I will not come out of retirement to do that work.