Test report and recommendations.

[SUNRAY]

I've just been sent an eicr and recommendations running to 11 pages, the tenant asked the inspector for a copy out of curiosity, he then sent it to an electrician friend for an opinion on how dangerous it is, he has sent it on to me to have a laugh. The 10pt Ar Blanca font in bold and Iitalics makes it very hard to read, I've copied and pasted a few snippets about the customer unit. Have a laugh with me:

However its easier to read in a proper text, when I read the original font I wondered what a Coeoarm was however I see it's Cocoarm but I don't find very much about them on google, all I've found so far is for caravans:

Customer unit.

…doesn't confirm to regulations... removed as a matter of emergency before it catches fire...


...replace chipboard wallboard with fireproof plywood wall board.


...fit new fireproof 17th edition customer unit by Cocoarm.


...fill customer unit with 2 of 6a Mcd, 3 of 16a Mcd, 3 of 32a Mcd, 1 of 40a Mcd, 1 of 45a Mcd, 2 of 45a fuse, 2 of 30Ma rcod, 1 of 100a isolator, 1 of SMP...


However it does seem the test result page looks thorough and realistic finding a borrowed neutral and open circuit ring.
All said and done, I assume he's a foreigner with a language issue.

 

[ericmark]

I look at the comply with regulations bit, the regulations clearly state the date after which the design must comply with them, so if some thing designed in 2008 then it still complies with current regulations if it did comply with the regulations in 2008, as that is what the 2018 regulations say.

I do see a problem in that we may not have a copy of the 2008 version, but that is besides the point.

So if anything does not comply with regulations then one of two things, either not right in first place, or it has degraded. Now potentially dangerous is some thing else, we did not have many electric cars in 2008, so some thing may today be considered potentially dangerous because the outlet is used to charge an electric car, but was not considered as potentially dangerous when installed.

So be it plastic CU or wooden back boxes, if we say it was not allowed when fitted, even if house built in 1954 we can return to builders and say you got this wrong, their answer is likely you should have had this checked every 10 years, so you should have raised this in 1964 when the first PIR was done. Which means also PIR or EICR in 1974, 1984, 1994, 2004, and 2014 also missed it. As to which inspector one can claim from for missing it not sure.

But at some point some one will say has it degraded, and if the answer is no, then OK taking the installer or last inspector to task for doing it wrong or missing it in last report.

I wonder what the reaction would be when an inspector gets a court summons to be a witness that the work was sub-standard to that required for work designed at that date?

Of course in real terms we can't prove it has not been altered, so any court case would likely fail, but although my dads house 1954 had plywood to mount fuse box and DNO equipment on, in most cases it is chip board, I wonder where he got the idea chip board not allowed?

 

[SUNRAY]

I have no connexion with the job other than sight of paperwork sent to me as a humourous thing.

I thought it was quite funny that the customer unit didn't confirm (I don't know what they didn't confirm) and had to be removed before catching fire, I have this image of the tenant standing in the garden with a hose on them. Then replace with a 3 year old customer.

 

[ericmark]

the 3 year old consumer, sitting in a consumer unit!