Rewire after failed EICR. Have we been scammed?

[Peggyhenry89]

My parents had an EICR completed after a change of tenant in the shop and flat property, this took place March 2021.

The summary of the report stated that the premises was dangerous and the full rewire was required to make it safe.

I have since completed a the C&G inspection and testing course through work and took a chance to have a look at the EICR given to us by our estate management firm.

I have noticed that the report does not contain any observations with the classification of C1 or C2 that would result in the requiring a full rewire. And also the inspector did not carry out any electrical tests to verify the condition of the existing installation (insulation resistance). The only observations included we C3 or FI all of which would not require a full rewire to make it safe.

There are also other mistakes and ommissions which suggest that the report was false and made to look like the premises was unsafe just to convince my parents that the wiring needed changing.

The inspector was contracted to carry out the EICR for the full premises which included a ground floor shop and first floor flat. I can only see information regarding the downstairs shop (DB1).

Now I am not suggesting that a week long course makes me an expert in EICR but it definitely makes me more aware of what to look for in a report.

We put our trust in the inspector and the l letting agent who recommended them.

My parents spent a lot of money on the full rewire and a second opinion has told us that the rewire was not required.

We believe that the inspector has acted unlawfully (breach of contract by not completing all tests included in the EICR, except limitations) and also immorraly. Both which means my parents paid out £8000 when it wasn't required.

The inspector is also a member of NAPIT so is obliged to carry out work to the proper electrical standard.

Does anyone else think we have sufficient recourse to make a complaint to trading standards, NAPIT and potential small claims?

I have attached the EICR for reference.

Thanks

 

[littlespark]

If there’s no C1 or C2, then the EICR is satisfactory.
C3 doesn’t mean it’s unsafe, but as the shop is open to the public, then they would be trying to make it as safe as possible for the general public.

It could be argued that a rewire wasn’t needed, maybe just a new consumer unit to add rcd protection to the circuits.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

If there’s no C1 or C2, then the EICR is satisfactory.
C3 doesn’t mean it’s unsafe, but as the shop is open to the public, then they would be trying to make it as safe as possible for the general public.

It could be argued that a rewire wasn’t needed, maybe just a new consumer unit to add rcd protection to the circuits.

Hi littlespark

Thanks for the reply.

I agree with what you say. I believe that the statement in section E should not have been made as a complete rewire was not the only remedy alongside the fact that the electrical system should have been marked as satisfactory.

Thanks

 

[brianmoooore]

Page 4 shows a 30mA RCD for all circuits, but doesn't record trip times. ?????

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Page 4 shows a 30mA RCD for all circuits, but doesn't record trip times. ?????

My course lecturer pointed thus out to me as well. Do you agree that this EICR has not been carried out properly and the statement that the premises is unsatisfactory and unsafe is false?

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Page 4 shows a 30mA RCD for all circuits, but doesn't record trip times. ?????

Also, no maximum Zs stated but no Zs measured apart from one.

TT system recorded but Ze recorded as 0.25 ohms. Only measured Zs recorded as 54.5 ohms

 

[brianmoooore]

As littlespark has written above, no C1s or C2s = officially satisfactory.
I've recommended full rewires on many occasions where the installation is 'satisfactory', but this is always because there are so many alterations and extensions proposed to be made to that installation, that it would be easier, cheaper and give better results, to simply start again.
Assuming the new installation is similar in location and number of points to the original, then that does not apply here.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

As littlespark has written above, no C1s or C2s = officially satisfactory.
I've recommended full rewires on many occasions where the installation is 'satisfactory', but this is always because there are so many alterations and extensions proposed to be made to that installation, that it would be easier, cheaper and give better results, to simply start again.
Assuming the new installation is similar in location and number of points to the original, then that does not apply here.

This EICR was due to a new tenant occupying the premises. No work was planned apart from what was said on the outcome of the EICR.

Since the EICR was carried out extensive rewiring was completed. All of which has been tested and Inspected.

As the initial EICR was completed incorrectly I believe that the rewiring was not necessary.

Thanks for your reply

 

[brianmoooore]

Have you asked the inspector involved to comment?

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Have you asked the inspector involved to comment?

No not yet. The original inspection took place in March 2021 and the rewire has since been completed.

I have spoken to the Citizens Advice but I was looking to see what other inspectors might think of the report.

I will probably contact the inspector to try and remedy it and look to putting a complaint to trading standards and NAPIT

 

[Dartlec]

The EICR is not very helpful in terms of gauging the condition of the wiring at the time - which by itself would suggest it's not a great 'condition report', which is what it is meant to be after all.

Do you have any idea what the cabling was like before they tested?

The schedule of tests seems to suggest that they carried out no Insulation Resistance tests, which makes it hard to judge if there was any problem with the existing cabling or not.

If it was all VIR (50s black rubber) then a rewire could be fairly recommended just on visual inspection basis. If the cabling was anything from 70s on, then there is every chance it was still perfectly fit for purpose.

There are time when a rewire is still a sensible consideration - if lots of adjusting of sockets is needed, for example, or if the circuits are so interlinked and confusing that starting from scratch would be better. But that should always come with a discussion of the pros and cons.

Unless the wiring was very old, or seriously damaged in ways that are not clear from the EICR, I can't see any reason why a rewire would be required to make it safe.

Did you get any quotation in writing at the time, or anything in writing that went into more detail than 'needs rewiring'?

IMO, the EICR is not very useful and is missing even the minimum tests that I'd consider should have been done for a dwelling (even aside the possible issue with shop/flat confusion).

Stroma/Napit will probably have a complaints procedure in place, which may well be worth following up on. At the very least, it will mean that they will have to justify their report to their inspector at an annual assessment.

 

[MJPD29]

My course lecturer pointed thus out to me as well. Do you agree that this EICR has not been carried out properly and the statement that the premises is unsatisfactory and unsafe is false?

No I don't agree that the statement of unsatisfactory is false. The lack of RCD protection for certain circuits would attract a c2 from a lot of people, and it can be justified. Basic insulation of a conductor outside of an enclosure may also attract a c2. The testing carried out has been poor, but overall there's a good chance the report, even when carried out properly, will still be unsatisfactory.

 

[brianmoooore]

In that case they should have been C2s, not C3s.
There's so little of the results filled in, that we can't make a judgement.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

No I don't agree that the statement of unsatisfactory is false. The lack of RCD protection for certain circuits would attract a c2 from a lot of people, and it can be justified. Basic insulation of a conductor outside of an enclosure may also attract a c2. The testing carried out has been poor, but overall there's a good chance the report, even when carried out properly, will still be unsatisfactory.

Hi Matthewd29

Yes I agree that the absence of RCD protection can be a C2. However, the regs are not retroactive and also if disconnection times are met then an RCD is not required. The inspector hasn't tested the Zs to determine if disconnection times would have been met with the original installation. Also, if the inspector believed that the lack of RCDs was a C2 then why didn't he put them down as C2 in the observations? If RCDs were required then a total rewire was not necessary, the CU could have been changed keeping the original wiring. If the IR was carried out then the condition of wiring would've been assessed and may have meant that the wiring may have needed to have been changed.

Sorry if I am being unreasonable in my judgement. I just feel that if there is a chance my parents have been ripped off I want to ensure that the person responsible has been held to account

Thanks

 

[littlespark]

I think we’re now getting into realms of legality, and although we can give advice, you may need the services of an actual lawyer.

You can approach their CPS, Napit and ask them to comment, and trading standards… But I don’t see what they could do.
You could also check the company in question is actually a member of Napit, and not just using their name.

For a job costing £8k, a lot of people would have gone for 2 or 3 quotes, and this consultation with other companies may have brought up the inaccuracies on the EICR…. That might not have happened if there was a short time frame before getting the tenant in.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

I think we’re now getting into realms of legality, and although we can give advice, you may need the services of an actual lawyer.

You can approach their CPS, Napit and ask them to comment, and trading standards… But I don’t see what they could do.
You could also check the company in question is actually a member of Napit, and not just using their name.

For a job costing £8k, a lot of people would have gone for 2 or 3 quotes, and this consultation with other companies may have brought up the inaccuracies on the EICR…. That might not have happened if there was a short time frame before getting the tenant in.

Hi littlespark

I have approaced Citizens Advice and I intend to contact either the letting agency or inspector to progress further.

My parents are naive when it comes to this and I am only just dipping my toes in thus industry so at the time none of us new what to look for on a EICR. We should've gone for more quotes but my parents were rushed by the letting agent and told they only had 30 days to get the EICR and any remedial work completed.

Thanks for your advice

Andrew

 

[pc1966]

Do you have any photos or records, etc, from the original time?

If it is a TT installation without RCD protection then it is most certainly not going to be satisfactory.

The only way (assuming it was measured correctly) that I can see getting 0.25 ohms Zs would be via service pipes, and you should never relay on those as a means of earthing (in the regs, number not to hand). If those pipes are changed to plastic (as most plumbing and new gas mains are now) you would be on to the earth electrode and not able to disconnect on any over-current protection.

I fully agree that as an EICR it is incomplete and lacking in information, and if my understanding of its original situation is right the lack of RCD protection is a C2. Also if there are any sockets that are likely to be used for outside stuff (e.g. extension lead for gardening or hoovering a car, etc) that is also C2 for lack of RCD.

The NAIPT guidance is more restrictive as C2 for most other lack of RCD situations, but many folks here go with the Best Practice guide #4 and they would be saying C2 for failure to disconnect on a TT rod's Ra (not measured it seems?) as well as sockets on the ground-floor that might be used outside (also for bathroom without full supplementary bonding, etc)

As already stated, a CU change would be enough for those aspects, but without knowing the condition of the cables and other aspects such as past poor work or cracked/damaged accessories it is hard to say if a rewire was justified or not.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Do you have any photos or records, etc, from the original time?

If it is a TT installation without RCD protection then it is most certainly not going to be satisfactory.

The only way (assuming it was measured correctly) that I can see getting 0.25 ohms Zs would be via service pipes, and you should never relay on those as a means of earthing (in the regs, number not to hand). If those pipes are changed to plastic (as most plumbing and new gas mains are now) you would be on to the earth electrode and not able to disconnect on any over-current protection.

I fully agree that as an EICR it is incomplete and lacking in information, and if my understanding of its original situation is right the lack of RCD protection is a C2. Also if there are any sockets that are likely to be used for outside stuff (e.g. extension lead for gardening or hoovering a car, etc) that is also C2 for lack of RCD.

The NAIPT guidance is more restrictive as C2 for most other lack of RCD situations, but many folks here go with the Best Practice guide #4 and they would be saying C2 for failure to disconnect on a TT rod's Ra (not measured it seems?) as well as sockets on the ground-floor that might be used outside (also for bathroom without full supplementary bonding, etc)

As already stated, a CU change would be enough for those aspects, but without knowing the condition of the cables and other aspects such as past poor work or cracked/damaged accessories it is hard to say if a rewire was justified or not.

Hi PC1966

The schedule of test results state that there are 30mA RCDs fitted to each circuit. Also, I have just checked the EIC from after the rewire done by another company and it states that the Ze is now 24.4 ohms, this also questions the validity of the original Ze meausure of 0.35ohms, unless the new installer have removed a lot of earthing conductors.

Thanks

 

[pc1966]

The schedule of test results state that there are 30mA RCDs fitted to each circuit. Also, I have just checked the EIC

Yes, test results say there is in one column but no test times, etc, for that, and the lack of RCD aspect is there as a C3 point.

Do you have a photo showing an RCD was actually present?

My suspicion is there was none but the form was auto-filled to have that column completed. Do you know when that installation was dated from?

from after the rewire done by another company and it states that the Ze is now 24.4 ohms, this also questions the validity of the original Ze measure of 0.35ohms, unless the new installer have removed a lot of earthing conductors.

Ze would be the "means of earthing" alone so could be 24 ohms as quite reasonable for a rod or two.

Zs is the in-use impedance with any bonding, etc, present. Are there measure Zs figures for individual circuits? They would show if bonding was taking the figure down to < 1 ohm, etc.

It is not uncommon for pipe work to be bonded in other nearby properties to a TN-C-S or TN-S system and so they can well drop the impedance down that way, but it is not reliable as anyone anywhere on the system can make a repair and not maintain electrical continuity quite legitimately.

 

[pc1966]

Just to add that when you are characterising a system there are two distinct aspects to measure:

• The Ze as the official "means of earthing". This is the value you ought to depend on for circuit desing and generally it would dictate if fault clearing on OCPD is possible (usual case on TN supplies) or if you are dependant on an RCD (usual case for TT).
• The Zs as the in-use impedance. That allows a measurement of both the PFC (fault to earth current) and the PSCC (L-N fault) so you know the highest current that any OCPD has to interrupt.

In most cases your standard CU MCB/RCBO on a domestic supply has no problems in interrupting the maximum current, but older rewirable fuses can have breaking limits as low as 1kA which can be exceeded fairly easily. in industrial situations toy might well find supplies that can exceed the usual 6-15kA for an MCB!

Even on domestic if you have a RCD it typically can only interrupt around 1.5kA so you must have some means to limit the current to within that range. Typically if you have a MCB in series then its "instant" magnetic trip is faster than a RCD so limits the fault current, but on a fuse or similar you might need to depend on a delay-RCD and to check that your fuse blowing time at that 1.5kA is less than the RCD's delay period so it is not interrupting the full current.