How to choose someone for EICR testing? (and trust issues)

Part M gives distances for access for example
Consumer units are mounted so that the switches are 1350-1450 mm above floor level.
there are two considerations, one being able to read the display, and two being able to operate any buttons or dials, with some items like a thermostat, you need both, so in the main have to be at 1200 mm, although clearly my TRV's are much lower, so there are exceptions.

To be frank much is designed for wheel chair users, and it seems clear the writer has not actually used a wheel chair, with self propelled the rear wheel axle is around 350 mm high, so that hight needs to be avoided for any sockets, as likely to be damaged, and any item over 1200 mm needs to be readable when viewed from below, and items like touch controls need to be visible when eyes are at 1200 mm and 600 mm away, many hobs are invisible at that angle.

Clearly if only assess is up stairs, then not worried about wheel chairs. Yet the rules seem to be the same, and if controls and items needing viewing have been like that for years, then no real need to alter, however swap some thing from some thing which only needed viewing, to some things which also needs buttons to be pressed, and then new rules kick in.

Go into any new build, as see how big the entrance hall is, however this has nothing to do with an EICR, it has to have to do with electrics, and be about the installation, not the equipment, with the exception of lights, and the thermostat, is equipment, not the installation, and is about its condition, not access or ability to view, so it does not cover smoke alarms, they are equipment, or boilers again equipment, or to give it full name, current using equipment, the consumer unit does not use current, so is part of the installation. For some reason lights are included in the installation, suppose only the bulb is current using equipment.

As will all things the inspector must be trained to do his job, and is normally an electrician, not a fireman, or surveyor, I may be able to fix a welding machine, but I am not a welder, as the same goes for other equipment, so the safety officer may say we need a smoke alarm there, that is likely part of his job, but in the main not mine.

I say in the main, as I know in one job we as electricians went around with the smoke generator and tested the smoke alarms, and in others it has been agreed when doing the EICR we would also do the inspection and testing of any in service electrical equipment hard wired, but the results were entered on the equipment register not as part of the EICR.

I have even brushed up some times, even if not my job, but as to what goes on the report, that is only things which are to do with the installation. Even if I do tell the lady of the house her pot is boiling over, it does not go into the report.

Extension leads are normally done with PAT testing, however they are not current using equipment, but again not really installed, so some common sense is required, but can't really fail an installation due to some thing missing. If there are no sockets, simply can't test them, same with lights, or smoke alarms. We may comment you need some lights in here, but we can't fail it for no lights.
 
Sponsored Links
btw how do my consumer units look? dunno the age! Each fuse= 1 circuit I think.View attachment 273940
In my opinion there are C2s there,
The oversized cable entry holes in the Wylex boxes potentially means the IP rating has been compromised.
The oversized cable entry holes in the RCD housings potentially means the IP rating has been compromised.
On site they may very well look very different

However the Wylex boxes are being used contrary to MI's and without fuse covers in place the IP rating has been compromised... (Before anyone criticises, the fuse covers were designed to left in place but have parts removed to allow the fitting of MCB's and the MI's showed this)

Without knowing the size of the supply fuse (the label indicates its been tampered with) it's difficult to judge from a picture but I wonder if the old tails look a little small.

EDIT: Well that serves me right for not reading the whole thread (somehow I'd missed it from the beginning).
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
So I was hoping that this house would pass, but my guy wouldnt even do the EICR when he saw no covers on the MCB's and gaps in the plastic casing for the RCD's around the wires... Got a quote for £650, but a free EICR at least. Although also £180 for fitting and supply of 12 new lights in the kitchen. Seems expensive though! Got really old style lights in the kitchen that are a potential fire hazard... apparently.
I see no reason to refuse to do the EICR, the whole purpose of it is to inspect the whole installation for problems and stopping when you come across the first of them seems very counter productive to me.

I'm surprised no one else had mentioned the openings, my previous post was directly after I saw your original photo..
 
In my opinion there are C2s there,
The oversized cable entry holes in the Wylex boxes potentially means the IP rating has been compromised.
The oversized cable entry holes in the RCD housings potentially means the IP rating has been compromised.
Your observations are (probably - but see below **) correct, but whether or not they all deserve C2 codings is perhaps open to some debate. In any event, I think they are issues which are usually easily remedied by some squirts of silicone or similar.

[ ** I sometimes wonder whether IP ratings may get 'over-interpreted'. I've never has an opportunity to look at EN 60529, but I get the impression that the first digit does not simply refer to 'maximum hole sizes' (which is what most of us presume) but, rather to the maximum hole size, intrusion of which would enable contact with live parts. In other words, I'm not sure that IP2X (which is what applies to all but the tops of electrical enclosures) requires that holes be limited to 12.5mm if the nature of the object is such that a finger inserted through the hole would not be able to touch any live parts. I'm really not sure about this ]

[ ** (2) ... also, in this particular case, although the 'gaps' we see on the bottoms of enclosures look 'quite large', I couldn't be sure (without being there) that they are necessarily greater than 12.5mm (which is 'quite a gap'!),could you? ]
However the Wylex boxes are being used contrary to MI's and without fuse covers in place the IP rating has been compromised... (Before anyone criticises, the fuse covers were designed to left in place but have parts removed to allow the fitting of RCD's and the MI's showed this)
I'm not so sure about that one. As you say, when MCBs (not RCDs) are fitted to such CUs, a large part of the 'cover is removed (per MIs),such that a substantial proportion of the devices are not covered.

Kind Regards, John
 
I see no reason to refuse to do the EICR, the whole purpose of it is to inspect the whole installation for problems and stopping when you come across the first of them seems very counter productive to me.
We don't know the full details, and it could be that the situation was more reasonable than you imply.

It could be that, after his first glance, the electrician said that, regardless of anything else in the installation, if he did an EICR then he was (rightly or wrongly) going to 'fail it' because of the CUs, and therefore suggested that it might make more sense for him first to replace the CUs and then undertake a (presumably 'full') EICR (at no cost)?

Kind Regards, John
 
It's a prepay meter. Guess it was lowered for ease of access.

If the OP decides to update the boards, it might be worth considering moving those down, too.

Edit: oops, smart meter, not prepay.

Guess it was lowered for ease of access to the display and buttons?
is smart IN prepay mode, actually I forgot that, my pos electric company said I would have to pay to get it put back to credit mode. Time to move..
 
I think I need more modern LED lights anyway for an eventual EPC, as long as Im not being ripped off on the Cosnumer units with rcdo protection Ill just go for it. But is £650 reasonable? I was alst year under the impression that I already had full RCD protection!!!!

I think the gaps were biger than 12 mm btw..
So what lights are these then? Halogen? And are they dangerous pft?
IMG_20230318_123357.jpg
 
Last edited:
GU5.3 a.k.a MR16. That one looks like halogen. LED also exist in that form factor. Turn it on and out your hand near it; obvious heat is halogen, whereas LED run much cooler
 
I couldn't really understand what hair you're splitting there..
The hair is that, at least theoretically (exceptions may not be manufactured, or easily available). a lamp/bulb with a GU5.3 base doesn't necessarily have to be MR16, and nor does an MR16 one necessarily have to have a GU5.3 base - so one should not really regard the terms as being interchangeable.

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top