Just received EICR Report - Help!

[goalcalvinho]

Hi,

I had an electrician come in to carry out an EICR for a property we're hoping to purchase - 2 bed victorian terraced. The EICR uncovered C1, C2, C3 and FI issues and the age of installation is estimated at 25 years.

List of issues: https://ibb.co/gT7kXpR

They were also unable to provide a schedule of test results as only 3 of the circuits were labelled.
He has also suggested a full rewiring and that any work not replacing circuits won’t bring the property up to the current standards and will fail safety levels.

Not an expert on this in the slightest, so unsure of the accuracy or if there are some exaggerated claims here.

Does this information make sense for a full house rewire?
Do the codes and issues raised match?
Is there a concern for safety levels?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

 

[RF Lighting]

Post the list of comments / observations that is included in the report.

Unless it was done to a poor standard to start with or incorrect materials were used, it’s unlikely that a 25 year old installation will require complete replacement.

Do you have any photographs of the installation in question?

 

[goalcalvinho]

Post the list of comments / observations that is included in the report.

Unless it was done to a poor standard to start with or incorrect materials were used, it’s unlikely that a 25 year old installation will require complete replacement.

Do you have any photographs of the installation in question?

Hi, thanks for your response - I've added to my initial message with a URL link to show the section of the report with the issues.

Some of the points they also raised:

- "After conducting an insulation resistance test the values obtained indicated both an immediate failure for most circuits and a significant deterioration for other circuits. Any remedial work shy of replacing all circuits will not bring the property up to the current standards of BS7671 and will fail in providing the minimal level of safety"

- "For the schedule of test results the dead tests for the circuits were not completed for the following reason as only 3 circuits were labelled out of 8, a failure at insulation resistance requires replacement of said circuit, making it unnecessary to continue testing."

 

[EFLImpudence]

They were also unable to provide a schedule of test results as only 3 of the circuits were labelled.

That doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[RF Lighting]

Having now seen the attached list of observations, it appears that a replacement consumer unit is required. Some investigatory work carrying out to see if main bonding is actually required and install it if it is, and a few other minor repairs.

What they have told you about failed IR readings to me sounds like complete nonsense. It would be normal to trace and repair the fault rather than replace the entire installation.

For most circuits to fail an IR test would be unusual. Perhaps they were not doing it properly.

Surely it can’t be that difficult to trace a few unlabelled circuits.

Is this contractor short of work?

 

[ericmark]

New PVC cable does not easy degrade, old rubber, or PVC with plasticizer leaching out, aluminium cables, and over heated cables may degrade, but with the exception of some Chinese cable which got to Australia, PVC cable is very unlikely to degrade.

As to plastic consumer units, lack or RCD protection there is a lot of debate as to if required in rented accommodation, but nothing can force you with owner occupied.

Code C3 means it may need something doing before anything can be added, but is considered as a pass.
Code FI could also be likely coded LIM and means he has not checked some thing, for example often with rows of houses only one had a loft hatch, so can't check due to no access.
Code C1 means dangerous and the electrician should not leave the premises without making safe.

So the main one is the Code 2 which is down to the inspectors whim. What is more interesting is cost to correct, so for example if a socket which is likely to be used outside has not got RCD protection and to cure this you need a £35 RCBO then no big deal, but if you need to swap the whole consumer unit costing £350 then slightly more concern, but even that is not really going to stop you buying.

But a full rewire and a new hatch into the loft clearly could mean not worth getting, or at least want a price reduction. However the report needs to be factual and accurate, on another forum some one posted a report when lack of labels was given a Code C1, that in essence means no one would take the report seriously, and it is not worth the paper written on, even if the other faults are genuine.

Insulation resistance being low can be simply one spider in a socket, a 13A socket costs £5 or less, so there may well be some sockets which at some point have had water in them, and all it may require is one socket changed, had it with daughters house, and yes it takes time to find which socket is bad, specially with no history, when some one says there was a leak there until x was fixed, it helps find fault.

But there is no report or any idea of what the report said so rather in the dark.

 

[goalcalvinho]

Is this contractor short of work?

That was my thinking! It all felt slightly exaggerated when paired with the immediate suggestion to rewire to the entire house in the same email.

 

[goalcalvinho]

But there is no report or any idea of what the report said so rather in the dark.

Hi, there's now a link showing the section of the report showing faults now the original message. Would be great to hear more of your thoughts once viewed.
At this point, I think it makes sense to get another EICR elsewhere to compare - not that we wanted an additional cost at the moment!

 

[ericmark]

on another forum some one posted a report when lack of labels was given a Code C1

It seems the report now showing is the same, if I was vendor, on seeing that, I would ignore the rest.

What you want is the cost to correct the faults.

Condition and accessibility of main protective bonding conductors/connections etc how can that be a FI? Why would he need to do further investigation either there is or there is not a main protective bonding conductor installed to the installation pipes? And what property has gas and oil?

Labels already covered

Not worried about C3

Allowing access to live parts is a C1 not C2 and unless you say what live parts you would need to do another EICR to find them.

No RCD for less than 50 mm cables is not a C2.

No basic insulation of conductor visible outside enclosure think the word is gobbledygook as you to start with need to say what enclosure and also not having visible basic insulation I would say is good.

So what he is saying is the lights in bathroom are not suitable, the rest is a load of rubbish, and the big question if one bit is rubbish would you really take any notice of the rest?

Your not the only one, I had a home buyers report done, it seems it was posted on the internet, so I could download, but not posted to me, so did not know it had even been done until two weeks before moving in, and it said disused fuse box between the original and new false ceiling, it was not disused it was the main box for house.

Clearly what you want is replace bathroom lights £A

etc.
And to be able to say it will cost £Y to do electrics we want a £Z reduction, but that report is no good to man or beast.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Hi, there's now a link showing the section of the report showing faults now the original message. Would be great to hear more of your thoughts once viewed.
At this point, I think it makes sense to get another EICR elsewhere to compare - not that we wanted an additional cost at the moment!

I see no link?

 

[goalcalvinho]

I see no link?

Here you go: https://ibb.co/gT7kXpR

 

[EFLImpudence]

It's in the OP.

 

[JohnD]

you can add a picture to your post by "copy and paste"

 

[ericmark]

Item 2 is what to me makes the whole thing stink. I see no way that any lack of labels can be a Code C1, from the documents on the Screwfix forum we know it is NAPIT software, I find the references to BS7671 rather suspect, code 4 has been removed we are not suppose to be looking breaches of BS7671 we are looking for dangerous and potentially dangerous. If this is the way NAPIT works then clearly one needs to keep clear of NAPIT.