Landlord electric test C1 situations???

[liddsville]

So does that mean no RCD's is a C1?..No... just at least a C3???? Sorry for my confusion

 

[JohnW2]

So does that mean no RCD's is a C1?..No... just at least a C3???? Sorry for my confusion

I don't think that anyone in their right mind could give a C1 to the absence of RCDs, in any situation. There will be varying opinions as regards C2 vs C3, either in general or in particular situations/contexts.

Kind Regards, John

 

[liddsville]

Thanks Lidds

 

[plugwash]

The report is seriously ****ed up.

He claims "100% of the installation" in section 4, it's very unusual for an EICR to inspect absolutely everything, a sampling approach is the norm.

Most of the entries in the list of observations simply do not make sense, It looks like he (or whatever software he used to prepare the result) has just taken the description text from a regulation number and appended "is in adangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required.". He has made no attempt to indicate what aspects of the installation the codes apply to or make the overall entry make sense in english. We can make an educated guess as to what the entries mean, but it's just that an educated guess.

The coding of most of the items is ridiculous. Going through his list (and making educated guesses what the entries actually mean) my opinions are

1. Not a fault per-se (though it should probably be replaced anyway, see later)
2. BS7671 says lack of required RCD protection is "at least a C3", the electrical safety counil guidance splits different categories of lack of RCD protection, giving C2 in some cases and C3 in others. In a typical house or flat in a small block one would normally argue that at least some of the sockets were likely to be used to supply portable equipment outside and therefore lack of RCD protection to those sockets is a C2. While it would certainly be possible to spot-add RCD protection to individual circuits using seperate RCDs in boxes, a CU replacement is IMO the most sensible way to deal with lack of RCD protection.
3. Could well be a C1 depending on how badly smashed the socket is and where it is located.
4. Makes no sense, there are no RCDs or circuit breakers.
5. It's ridiculous to claim that lack of labelling is a C1 maybe you could argue a C2 if the labelling was actively misleading.
6. It's ridiculous to claim that lack of labelling is a C1
7. RCDs are not normally used for fault protection in a TN installation.
8. See 2
9. Since he hasn't provided any circuit details we can't assess this.
10. see 9
11. This could be more of a concern, he may be trying to say that some circuits are missing earths, if so that can be a very serious issue but since he hasn't given any details it's hard to advise further.
12. See 2.
13. see 2.
14. See 2.
15. See 2.

The form states to state serial numbers of test equipment but he has just filled the boxes with yes.

It would be pretty unusual to have a MCB as the main switch for the installation.



100A BS1362 fuses don't exist. Possiblly a typo for BS1361 but also likely an indication of cluelessness.

No schedule of test results or circuit details was provided

 

[liddsville]

Thanks Plugwash .I put out the original thread about 1 thing but realised quite a few were wrong( as i am a gasman not spark).
Tomorrow WILL be interesting for the company doing certs,Thanks again .Lidds

 

[SUNRAY]

Were these reports works of fiction organised by a letting agent, I'll lay money they were.

I'll also say don't pay if it's not too late as I don't believe it's possible to be in that bad condition and still be working.

That said I've seen the results of illicit horticultural efforts.

 

[flameport]

Can you give me a run down of the incorrect interpretations on the report,

On the first one:

1 Rewirable fuse board needs replacing C1
Not a valid comment, reasons need to be given. Rewireable fuseboards are still valid in BS7671, although it's very unlikely one would be installed today.

2 No rcd protection C1
At worst, that's a C2, and most would be a C3.

3 Single socket smashed needs replacing. C2
One of the few instances of a C1, as live parts likely to exposed.

4 4.8 Manual operation of circuit-breakers and RCDs to prove disconnection (643.10) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
Unclear what they mean, presumably that one or more circuit breakers / RCDs doesn't work, as in it doesn't disconnect when switched off. Not impossible but a very unlikely situation, and even then it's a C2. As the installation has a rewireable fuseboard (item 1), it presumably refers to an external RCD of some kind.

5 4.9 Correct identification of circuit details and protective devices (514.8.1; 514.9.1) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
Probably lack of circuit labels or other information. C3. Not dangerous. Fixed by adding the appropriate labels or circuit charts.

6 4.10 Presence of RCD six-monthly test notice at or near consumer unit/distribution board (514.12.2) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
A label is missing. C3.

7 4.18 RCD(s) provided for fault protection - includes RCBOs (411.4.204; 411.5.2; 531.2) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
RCDs for fault protection only applies to TT supplies, which is the most uncommon option. C2 if applicable, which it isn't as they have indicated it's a TNCS supply.

8 4.19 RCD(s) provided for additional protection/requirements - includes RCBOs (411.3.3; 415.1) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
RCDs are required for almost all circuits now, lack of RCDs is common, but is C2 at worst, C3 for most.

9 5.6 Coordination between conductors and overload protective devices (433.1; 533.2.1) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
Implies that there are circuits wired using conductors that are too small, such as using 1mm² T&E for a cooker circuit. As they haven't provided any information as to the circuits, it's safe to assume this is a pack of lies. C2 even if it was applicable.

10 5.7 Adequacy of protective devices: type and rated current for fault protection (411.3) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
Same as previous item, very likey made up, and no evidence to support it.

11 5.8 Presence and adequacy of circuit protective conductors (411.3.1; Section 543) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
Lack of protective conductors most often seen on very old lighting circuits. C2 if that's the case, and only usually seen on lighting circuits installed before 1966.

12 5.12.3 For cables concealed in walls at a depth of less than 50mm (522.6.202; 522.6.203) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
Lack of RCDs again, normally C3 or perhaps C2.

13 5.12.1 For all socket-outlets of rating 32A or less, unless an exception is permitted (411.3.3) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
No RCDs for socket outlets, C2 if they can be used for items outside, C3 if not.

14 5.12.4 For cables concealed in walls/partitions containing metal parts regardless of depth (522.6.203) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
No RCDs for cables in the walls. C3, some might put C2. Depends on the circumstances.

15 5.12.5 Final circuits supplying luminaires within domestic (household) premises (411.3.4) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required. C1
No RCDs for lighting circuits. C3.

Part 10 should have the serial numbers of the test equipment, not the word 'YES'. Unknown why they have filled in a device for testing earth electrode resistance when there isn't one.

Part 11 - Nominal voltage can't be 230 and 240 at the same time. PFC is most definitely NOT 627kA. 0.627 is possible, or 6.27 perhaps.
1362 fuses are used in 13A 3 pin plugs. Not for the supply to a property, they are not type gG and they are not available in 100A, and don't have a short circuit capacity of 6kA either.

Part 12 - 'MCB Obsolete' is not a valid standard for a main switch, and it's desperately unlikely that it's an MCB. It might be a 100A as stated, but it will NOT have a setting of 80A or anything else.

Part 15 - mostly just tick boxes relating to the others, however 5.18 should not be ticked, as that's the condition of accessories, such as the smashed socket outlet referred to earlier.

Part 16 - should be completed with details of all of the circuits. Even if no testing was done, there should still be a list of the fuses/circuit breakers and appropriate ratings and the size and type of conductors connected to them.

It's 100% junk. The person completing it is either totally incompetent, a charlatan, or both. You should not pay anything for it.

 

[flameport]

As for the second one - same old rubbish with some inconsistencies.

An amazing coincidence that a totally unrelated property has the exact same PFC and Ze, and the same impossible main fuse, the same 'MCB Obsolete' main switch and all the rest.
Once again no circuit information, no explanations given for the spurious defects.

Whoever did those reports needs to be expelled from the electrical industry permanently.

 

[ericmark]

There is no hard and fast rules for C1, C2, C3, or FI. The whole EICR is designed to inform the owner likely problems, it was never designed as a legul document, so as daft as the document is, and it is daft, it is up to the owner to ensure the inspector is able to do the work.

Some scheme providers do seem to allow their forms to be used. Which to my mind is dangerous. If one sees a scheme member logo I can see how an owner would not ask to see a city & guilds 2391 certificate.

Unlike gas safe or vehicle MOT there is nothing to really to say who can do an EICR if the guy thinks he has the ability nothing really to stop him. Yes seems daft, but it was never designed as a legul document.

Even good electricians argue over what is permitted. Basic is if nothing has changed, and it complied when designed then it still complies.

However in real life things do change. Although BS 7671 is not retrospective some of the laws are, and frankly for electricians to keep up will all the laws is difficult, however the EICR does not ask when giving C1, C2 and C3 if it follows regulations, the old code 4 does not comply with current regulations was dropped.

So although we feel the report is wrong, not much you can do about it, other than he should not leave without making safe.

 

[liddsville]

Wow and Wow,it was from an ad for LL checks.I have not paid and forwarded reasons why(thanks Plugwash)..no doubt I will get a bit of abuse from them..cheers Lidds

 

[flameport]

Does the person claim to be a member of any scheme such as NICEIC, ELECSA, NAPIT or others?

 

[liddsville]

I will check and get back thanks FP

 

[JohnW2]

There is no hard and fast rules for C1, C2, C3, or FI. ... Even good electricians argue over what is permitted. ... So although we feel the report is wrong, not much you can do about it ...

That's surely a very 'tame' response to such a ridiculous pair of EICRs, isn't it?

I would suggest that very few even 'slightly good' electricians would agree with much of these reports (certainly the C1 codes).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

That's surely a very 'tame' response to such a ridiculous pair of EICRs, isn't it?

I would suggest that very few even 'slightly good' electricians would agree with much of these reports (certainly the C1 codes).

Kind Regards, John

I agree, but was looking for a way forward.
Once one passes an exam, it's passed. As we get old and dementure sets in, our qualifications are not revoked. This guy has written a daft report, but there is no way to remove his authority to write them.

If he passes something dangerous then maybe he could be taken to task, but failing something not so easy.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree, but was looking for a way forward. Once one passes an exam, it's passed. As we get old and dementure sets in, our qualifications are not revoked. This guy has written a daft report, but there is no way to remove his authority to write them.

Quite. As I keep saying, since appearance of the PRS legislation, I believe there is a very strong case for registration/licensing/whatever of those who undertake 'landlord EICRs' - so that there then would be a way of "removing his authority to write them".

If he passes something dangerous then maybe he could be taken to task, but failing something not so easy.

Well, he might even have done that. As I said, amongst the sea of ridiculous C1s was a "smashed socket needs replacing" to which he only gave a C2. Depending on how seriously 'smashed' it was, as I said before, it could be one of the few (maybe even only!) items which might genuinely deserve a C1 - not quite "passing something dangerous", but perhaps a case of 'under-coding something very dangerous!

Kind Regards, John