Unsatisfactory EICR??

[Billwah]

Hi there all,
Just had an EICR c/o in my 3 bed house, and got an unsatisfactory report with c2 and c3 observations.

The c3 is an advisory, with the two c2's causing the unsatis overall report.

The CU is 20 yes old and plastic, with RCD to some circuits, and not others. All are MCBs.

Have been advised to either replace CU for metal, containing similar breakers. OR replace RCD and MCB with RCBOs to eliminate the c2 codes.

One of the c2 codes is for no supplemental bonding.

Friend at work is going through his electrician training and thinks the 2 c2's could be c3s.

Any advice as to which is correct would be fantastic.

Bill

 

[Octopus]

Suggest you google electrical safety council best practice guide no 4 and take a good read

 

[Welchyboy1]

Supplementary bonding in a bathroom was 16th edition regs which sounds like your cu is too

No rcd protection or supplementary bonding would be a c2 For me

If it had just supplementary bonding wired as per 16th edition with no rcd i would c3 it, with a recommendation for rcd protection

Installing an rcbo would solve this issue

What is the other c2?

 

[buzzlightyear]

welcome ,could you put the report on here mainly the observations .the spark that does the work could concentrate doing the c2 that will give it the satisfactory. flak jacket on now, and now tin helmet .

 

[johnduffell]

One of the c2 codes is for no supplemental bonding.

what is the other C2 for? your post implies it's for non metal CU but it's not clear. On a TT installation plastic would actually have safety benefits over metal.

supplemental bonding might not be required in the bathroom even with no RCDs, if the water pipes are all plastic/isolated. Unlikely I know. The electrician should have tested them.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Supplementary bonding in a bathroom was 16th edition regs which sounds like your cu is too

No rcd protection or supplementary bonding would be a c2 For me

If it had just supplementary bonding wired as per 16th edition with no rcd i would c3 it, with a recommendation for rcd protection

Installing an rcbo would solve this issue

What is the other c2?

Supplementary bonding wasn't just 16th regs….it is a requirement in all editions from the 15th up to the present, it is still a requirement in bath/shower rooms unless 3 conditions are met, often overlooked . If there is no supplementary bonding in place for bath/shower rooms and no RCD protection to circuits within the locations, then that is a code 2 as you say.

 

[johnduffell]

Supplementary bonding wasn't just 16th regs….it is a requirement in all editions from the 15th up to the present, it is still a requirement in bath/shower rooms unless 3 conditions are met, often overlooked . If there is no supplementary bonding in place for bath/shower rooms and no RCD protection to circuits within the locations, then that is a code 2 as you say.

true, in fact two of the conditions would result in their own codes as they are necessary anyway (main bonding and disconnection time)

 

[Billwah]

Supplementary bonding in a bathroom was 16th edition regs which sounds like your cu is too

No rcd protection or supplementary bonding would be a c2 For me

If it had just supplementary bonding wired as per 16th edition with no rcd i would c3 it, with a recommendation for rcd protection

Installing an rcbo would solve this issue

What is the other c2?

C2's were for no supplemental bonding and for only 1 RCD. Circuits not on the RCD are: 2 lighting circuits, cooker, and smoke detectors.

 

[SparkyAndGeorge]

Lack of supplementary bonding conductors in location containing bath or shower, unless not required by BS7671: 2018 is a C2 in my opinion.

 

[davesparks]

C2's were for no supplemental bonding and for only 1 RCD.

Is that the exact wording of the report?

 

[Billwah]

what is the other C2 for? your post implies it's for non metal CU but it's not clear. On a TT installation plastic would actually have safety benefits over metal.

supplemental bonding might not be required in the bathroom even with no RCDs, if the water pipes are all plastic/isolated. Unlikely I know. The electrician should have tested them.

Cheers for the reply. Nah the C3 was for the case. The c2's were no supplemental bonding and for only one RCD. Here's a pic of the CU...

 

[Billwah]

Is that the exact wording of the report?

 

[telectrix]

easy job to fit a 2nd RCD in that CU with a bit of reconfiguration (love that word, so i'll say it again....... "it").

 

[Billwah]

Lack of supplementary bonding conductors in location containing bath or shower, unless not required by BS7671: 2018 is a C2 in my opinion.

The sparky asked where the shower pump was, and I told him it had been fitted under the bath with plastic pipes. The fitter got a sparks in to sign that bit off before the bath panel was fitted and mastic-ed in. He seemed fine with it at the time. I known the no going tags were on the hot and cold pipes to the taps too, but you can't see them. If they are inaccessible, is that the same as not there?

 

[Billwah]

What's getting me is that if I either agree to have a new CU or RCBOs fitted, I can have a satisfactory EICR.
How does either of those affect the C2 for no supplemental bonding??

 

[Octopus]

Not sure you will get RCBO ‘s in that unit ....especially near the main switch.

 

[SparkyAndGeorge]

What's getting me is that if I either agree to have a new CU or RCBOs fitted, I can have a satisfactory EICR.
How does either of those affect the C2 for no supplemental bonding??

Its been explained above. It still is a requirement, unless all 3 conditions have been met. Why have you had the EICR carried out?

 

[davesparks]

What's getting me is that if I either agree to have a new CU or RCBOs fitted, I can have a satisfactory EICR.
How does either of those affect the C2 for no supplemental bonding??

You won't receive a satisfactory EICR, it will remain unsatisfactory. What you will get is a certificate for the work carried out which proves that the remedial work has been carried out.

 

[Billwah]

Its been explained above. It still is a requirement, unless all 3 conditions have been met. Why have you had the EICR carried out?

Required by buyers solicitor.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

 

[davesparks]

View attachment 49815

Well then that's a load 9f -------s in my opinion.
I'd ask them to re-do the report with a proper description of the problem they have identified.

 

[Octopus]

Required by buyers solicitor.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

Did you organise the EICR and if so how long was the spark onsite and how much did they charge?

 

[Billwah]

Well then that's a load 9f ******** in my opinion.
I'd ask them to re-do the report with a proper description of the problem they have identified.

I think it's ironic that they're quoting 18th edition regs, at the same time writing the report on out of date forms. They state complies with BS3671:2008 revised 2015. Aren't the new forms as revised 2018?

 

[Billwah]

Did you organise the EICR and if so how long was the spark onsite and how much did they charge?

I did, and they managed to get me in same day. About £140

 

[Octopus]

I did, and they managed to get me in same day. About £140

How big is the property and how long were they on site?

 

[Billwah]

I did, and they managed to get me in same day. About £140

Sorry, about an hour and a half. Had all the kit.
I've read I. The ESC guides that if supplemental bonding can't be seen ( in my case under the bath) then they do a continuity check which has to be <0.05ohm. didn't see him do that, he was happy when I showed him the cert from the sparky who fitted the shower pump.under the bath.

 

[Billwah]

How big is the property and how long were they on site?

3 bed, 90 mins

 

[Octopus]

3 bed, 90 mins

Tell them to come back and do it properly .... £140 for 90 minutes...

 

[rolyberkin]

On the basis of the photo of that CU I cannot believe there aren't more observations listed, if I got that EICR as a buyer I would be sending my own electrician around. I normally get instructed by the buyer not the seller!

 

[Billwah]

On the basis of the photo of that CU I cannot believe there aren't more observations listed, if I got that EICR as a buyer I would be sending my own electrician around. I normally get instructed by the buyer not the seller!

As my missus tells me, looks aren't everything.

 

[westward10]

There is no such thing as a fire rated consumer unit.

 

[Grezza]

No sup in bathroom no RCD. C2 for me

 

[magnoliafan89]

There is no such thing as a fire rated consumer unit.

I dunno....Went to this previous year...(mcbs cleaned before the pic was taken) contained the situation.

 

[ipf]

I dunno....Went to this previous year...(mcbs cleaned before the pic was taken) contained the situation.

View attachment 49816

That's fire ratted......not rated

 

[westward10]

That is a dist board constructed from non combustible materials, not a fire rated dist board.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I usually find it works out at a minimum of 30 minutes per circuit on site. 7 circuits I would expect to be there around a morning.

 

[Welchyboy1]

Not sure you will get RCBO ‘s in that unit ....especially near the main switch.

Yep spot on! the neutral bar is right above the mcbs!

Tried to do that on monday lol!

 

[Octopus]

Yep spot! on the neutral bar is right above the mcbs!

Interesting question by the OP ........... I suspect he thinks if he spends more on the CU then the T&I will be cheaper but the reality is that RCBO make fault finding cheaper .............when issues occur.

Dual RCD boards are the work of the devil IMHO

 

[Welchyboy1]

Does the cooker circuit have a socket outlet on the plate?

If not It shouldnt really be a c2 because the lighting and cooker circuits are not rcd protected, as it was pre-regulation
Should be c3 with recommendation to upgrade surely

 

[magnoliafan89]

That is a dist board constructed from non combustible materials, not a fire rated dist board.

Oh look I just spotted the sarcasm flying over your head....

 

[SparkyAndGeorge]

Looks like you've had a visit from the in the van testers. Should've taken half a day at least if done to the letter, t will not have been carried out with the attention they require. From what we can see here though he may be correct regarding the c2 for lack of supplementary bonding. Easy solution is to replace the bathroom lighting mcb for an rcbo.