Poll: EICR Coding of a 'plastic' CU in domestic installation

[JohnW2]

As said many times before the EICR was never designed to be a legal document in the way it is being used in rental property ...

Agreed - and, as I just wrote, in other contexts if one is unhappy with an EICR, one can (as a last resort) simply ignore it and commission another one - but not for rental property under the new legislation.

... easy work around is don't use C2, you can write down how dangerous no problem with that, just stop the use of C2 code.

Yes - but, as things are, landlords are totally at the mercy of individual electricians to decide whether or not (and when) to use the C2 code - which is what I think is totally unsatisfactory.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Agreed - and, as I just wrote, in other contexts if one is unhappy with an EICR, one can (as a last resort) simply ignore it and commission another one - but not for rental property under the new legislation.
Yes - but, as things are, landlords are totally at the mercy of individual electricians to decide whether or not (and when) to use the C2 code - which is what I think is totally unsatisfactory.

Kind Regards, John

I agree, only option is to tell the LABC there is a dispute, and ask them to mediate. I can't see how they can refuse?

I had problems with the LABC inspector, he said I needed to employ some third party to carry out an EICR, my son was doing the talking and his comment was if your going to use a third party inspector he clearly needs to be higher qualified to my dad, so who have you got to level 6 who you can use?

It was a bit tongue in cheek but it worked, and clearly any inspector to level 3 will be over ridden by an inspector who holds level 5 qualifications. So one would need to get a higher qualified inspector. However the point is looking at a day to inspect so around £200 mark, and to correct minor problems is cheaper than getting it inspected again.

Have you know anyone ever complain about an MOT failure and win? The only time it would make sense is with a vintage car, where for example fitting seat belts would detract from look of car, and it goes so slow hardly required.

So in real world, £400 to fit new consumer unit, £200 for second inspection, and with second inspection he may find something else, so only real option is new consumer unit or of course a metal box fitted over the consumer unit.

Since a metal box does not even need an electrician to fit it, an adaptable metal box with hole cut in back so it will fit over the consumer unit with a receipt for the work, and technically your done. Not best method, but until the EICR runs out again, hard to show it does not comply.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree, only option is to tell the LABC there is a dispute, and ask them to mediate. I can't see how they can refuse?

They probably can't 'refuse', but we're still back to the same (I say unsatisfactory) situation, in as much as the decision will rest on the opinion/views/judgement/discretion of the individual concerned (in this case a BC officer), whose decision may well differ from that which others might have made.

Have you know anyone ever complain about an MOT failure and win?

For what it's worth, I actually have - more than once. It again usually relates to things where 'individual judgement' is involved - e.g. when the amount of play in a bearing or steering joint is judged 'manually' (by waggling it!) rather than by measurement.

.... so only real option is new consumer unit or of course a metal box fitted over the consumer unit. ... Since a metal box does not even need an electrician to fit it, an adaptable metal box with hole cut in back so it will fit over the consumer unit with a receipt for the work, and technically your done. Not best method, but until the EICR runs out again, hard to show it does not comply.

Maybe, but some might argue that a metal box with a massive hole in the back is not 'enclosing' the CU, mightn't they?

I would also be concerned about the safety of using an adaptable box - since if one wanted/needed to get at the main switch in an emergency, one wouldn't want to have to undoing the screws of a box in order to gain access - indeed, the absence of a not-easily accessible means of isolation of the installation might well, in itself, be felt to need a C2 coding!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I was thinking of an adaptable box with a door, however the requiring urgent is the main thing, C3 codes still show it needs doing, C2 makes it need doing urgent, I can't think of any fault, which will only become dangerous after 28 days, either it is dangerous or it's not, for it might become dangerous we need a second action to happen, so we could say wrong wire colour may become dangerous if there is no warning notice, although I would say that is stretching it some what, or if the cables are disturbed they may become dangerous, so what can happen to a consumer unit made of plastic which will make it become dangerous? Hit with the vacuum cleaner? How are you going to protect it and stop it becoming dangerous, put a metal guard around it?

If we have a faulty MCB be the whole thing faulty or the installation faulty, i.e. terminal not clamped down correctly, then that MCB can go on fire tomorrow just as easy as in 30 days time, so it needs correcting now not in 28 days.

So any signs of excessive heat it is a C1, and if no signs of heat C3, there is very little I can think of which needs fixing within 28 days, it either needs fixing now, or needs fixing when the planned maintenance is done.

 

[Adam_151]

Would like to vote for the non existant "C3 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise none" Are you able to add that as an option as I reckon quite a few people would be of this opinion

 

[JohnW2]

Would like to vote for the non existant "C3 if under stairs, in escape route etc., otherwise none" Are you able to add that as an option as I reckon quite a few people would be of this opinion

Done - so you can vote now!

I have to say that I hadn't thought that anyone would want that option, since I thought (clearly wrongly) that, now that there is no C4, most/all people would think that anything that was not fully compliant with current regs should be given at least a C3 (although, admittedly, I did include a "None" option - so I was not consistent in my thinking!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... I can't think of any fault, which will only become dangerous after 28 days, either it is dangerous or it's not ...

True, but we have C1 for anything so dangerous that it requires 'immediate' action. If it's not perceived as 'that dangerous', one presumably has to give some time in which it has to be remedied - but the 28 days is obviously totally arbitrary.

However, I again agree that these 'matters of individual judgement' areas are not very satisfactory - in this case presumably a judgement ('risk assessment') that the probability of any harm arising within 28 days is 'acceptably low' (which is really "anyone's guess"!).

However, this has nothing to do with EICRs, or EICR coding, in general. It seems to be only the recent 'PRS' legislation that has introduced this '28 days'. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in BS7671, or on EICR forms, which says anything explicitly about how quickly a C2 has to be 'remedied' (only 'urgently' - which again requires interpretation/judgement/discretion).

Kind Regards, John