C2 issues? Consumer Unit & Circuit forms a Figure of 8 Rather than a complete RFC?

[pc1966]

I get the feeling I'm being a bit ripped off, particularly as I think they were lining me up to buy a new CU. What would I be able to go back with so I sound a bit more clued up?

Without seeing it we can't tell.

You could get more photos to show the CU and any holes for cable (or other damage) and post them here.

If @SparkyChick cover your area then she is an excellent choice for a 2nd opinion, but it might just get the same answer but now 2 EICR costs and same remedial expense.

More info and guidance can be found for free in the Best Practice Guide #4 here:

https://www.----------------------------/professional-resources/best-practice-guides/

 

[pc1966]

I guess that would cause the circuit to trip out more than usual?

Does it usually trip?

Unless you have all of the kitchen and rest of the house with heaters, etc, on the same RFC then you are unlikely to trip the MCB on over current at 20A. However, if it is the RCD that is tripping due to a selection of leaky electronics then the better solution would be a new CU with all RCBO so you don't have several circuits accumulation leakage to the point a common RCD trips.

 

[LEighLeigh]

Does it usually trip?

Unless you have all of the kitchen and rest of the house with heaters, etc, on the same RFC then you are unlikely to trip the MCB on over current at 20A. However, if it is the RCD that is tripping due to a selection of leaky electronics then the better solution would be a new CU with all RCBO so you don't have several circuits accumulation leakage to the point a common RCD trips.

I think that is the answer then, drop the MCB to 20 A

 

[SparkyChick]

Are you based in S Wales also?

Yes, but I operate in/around Cardiff and Newport.

 

[pc1966]

I think that is the answer then, drop the MCB to 20 A

It might be a solution but you still need to check all of the sockets are soundly connected. I suspect the 'FI' code is down to being unable to verify they are OK in the usual end-end test.

Do you know of any work on the sockets since the installation / last inspection that might explain this?

Looking at the photo there are two circuits (at least, MCB fitted) that as marked as "spare". Are they really unused or just not properly documented?

 

[westward10]

Yes, but I operate in/around Cardiff and Newport.

You ignore the 50mph through Port Talbot it is half an hour away

 

[Dartlec]

I get the feeling I'm being a bit ripped off, particularly as I think they were lining me up to buy a new CU. What would I be able to go back with so I sound a bit more clued up?

If you haven't already then ask for a detailed quote for the remedial works. The C2s are the only ones you must correct - the others are optional.

You are also at liberty to get other quotes for the work - there is no requirement in law to get another report that says 'satisfactory' on it - just to correct the issues that were discovered.

It does make it easier with letting agents to have the one satisfactory report, but all you need by law (assuming this is a let property) is the EICR plus proof that all remedial works have been completed.

The Figure of 8 issue probably needs some more detailed investigation - however, from the looks of the consumer unit I'm guessing it's not a huge property so unlikely to be a lot of sockets?

If the 'alteration' they mention has been made at a socket it may well be easy to resolve. If not, and the sockets don't cover lots of appliances or kitchen, then dropping it to a 20A radial may well be the easiest/cheapest solution.

The consumer unit would appear to be one that was installed within the last 10 years or so - was there any documentation/certification with it, as that may reveal whether the original installer or the current tester has done a better job?

 

[timhoward]

Can someone put me out of my misery..... I've seen no outgoing N tail from a meter before, but never no incoming N tail.
Where is the supplier side N incoming meter tail? And what is that short loop out and back to the cut-out doing?
Sorry if I'm being thick!

 

[LEighLeigh]

If you haven't already then ask for a detailed quote for the remedial works. The C2s are the only ones you must correct - the others are optional.

You are also at liberty to get other quotes for the work - there is no requirement in law to get another report that says 'satisfactory' on it - just to correct the issues that were discovered.

It does make it easier with letting agents to have the one satisfactory report, but all you need by law (assuming this is a let property) is the EICR plus proof that all remedial works have been completed.

The Figure of 8 issue probably needs some more detailed investigation - however, from the looks of the consumer unit I'm guessing it's not a huge property so unlikely to be a lot of sockets?

If the 'alteration' they mention has been made at a socket it may well be easy to resolve. If not, and the sockets don't cover lots of appliances or kitchen, then dropping it to a 20A radial may well be the easiest/cheapest solution.

The consumer unit would appear to be one that was installed within the last 10 years or so - was there any documentation/certification with it, as that may reveal whether the original installer or the current tester has done a better job?

Thank you, yes the CU is 7 years old approx and it is a small house, just three bedroom terrace. Sockets number around 10 throughout the whole property I think.

Downstairs recently there was a 'false wall' put in which sits 2 inches in front on the old wall, two sockets had to be moved, now one doesn't work.

I think the sockets do cover the kitchen, but not entirely sure. I'll try and get a picture of the CU tomorrow.

So by law I guess I do have to have a competent person undertake the FI too

 

[Dartlec]

Thank you, yes the CU is 7 years old approx and it is a small house, just three bedroom terrace. Sockets number around 10 throughout the whole property I think.

Downstairs recently there was a 'false wall' put in which sits 2 inches in front on the old wall, two sockets had to be moved, now one doesn't work.

I think the sockets do cover the kitchen, but not entirely sure. I'll try and get a picture of the CU tomorrow.

So by law I guess I do have to have a competent person undertake the FI too

It sounds like the two moved sockets would be a good candidate to start investigating then!

It might be a fairly simple fix (It's possibly just a simple case of connecting wires up differently behind the two sockets.) it's just that often the time set aside for testing doesn't allow things like this to be confirmed or corrected.

Although as @westward10 points out, it should either have been coded as a confirmed "figure of eight", or FI with a description of what the issue is that needs to be checked (presumably poor or inconsistent continuity tests).

From the horses mouth: -

"If the report shows that remedial work or further investigation is required, as set out above, landlords must complete this work within 28 days or any shorter period if specified as necessary in the report. Landlords must then provide written confirmation that the work has been carried out to their tenant and to the local authority within 28 days."​

Which is yet another example of the poorly written legislation - as technically it doesn't say that the person that carries out the remedial work must be competent.

However, ALL electrical work should be carried out by someone competent, as required by other general legislation - You also need to be able to prove in future that the work has been carried out competently, so a certificate or invoice rather than a hand written note from a handyman is advisable in anything electrical.

With an FI, it can be tricky to decide what remedial work is required though without further testing. It's likely that just replacing the MCB with a 20A without that further testing isn't guaranteed to resolve the issue.

Do you have the test results page, as that might throw a little extra light on the issue.

 

[Dartlec]

Can someone put me out of my misery..... I've seen no outgoing N tail from a meter before, but never no incoming N tail.
Where is the supplier side N incoming meter tail? And what is that short loop out and back to the cut-out doing?
Sorry if I'm being thick!

View attachment 100706

having zoomed in a bit, I think that maybe a Henley block on top of the cut out extending either L or N. I'm guessing the other tail is there but hidden in the photo? Maybe behind whatever that shield is under the meter that I can't read...

Either that or the EICR missed rather an obvious problem!

 

[LEighLeigh]

It sounds like the two moved sockets would be a good candidate to start investigating then!

It might be a fairly simple fix (It's possibly just a simple case of connecting wires up differently behind the two sockets.) it's just that often the time set aside for testing doesn't allow things like this to be confirmed or corrected.

Although as @westward10 points out, it should either have been coded as a confirmed "figure of eight", or FI with a description of what the issue is that needs to be checked (presumably poor or inconsistent continuity tests).

From the horses mouth: -

"If the report shows that remedial work or further investigation is required, as set out above, landlords must complete this work within 28 days or any shorter period if specified as necessary in the report. Landlords must then provide written confirmation that the work has been carried out to their tenant and to the local authority within 28 days."​

Which is yet another example of the poorly written legislation - as technically it doesn't say that the person that carries out the remedial work must be competent.

However, ALL electrical work should be carried out by someone competent, as required by other general legislation - You also need to be able to prove in future that the work has been carried out competently, so a certificate or invoice rather than a hand written note from a handyman is advisable in anything electrical.

With an FI, it can be tricky to decide what remedial work is required though without further testing. It's likely that just replacing the MCB with a 20A without that further testing isn't guaranteed to resolve the issue.

Do you have the test results page, as that might throw a little extra light on the issue.

I do, see attached !

 

[timhoward]

having zoomed in a bit, I think that maybe a Henley block on top of the cut out extending either L or N. I'm guessing the other tail is there but hidden in the photo? Maybe behind whatever that shield is under the meter that I can't read...

Either that or the EICR missed rather an obvious problem!

The Henley block makes sense. Thanks, it just caught my eye and looked wrong.
Assuming the installation works (!) it must be there somehow...unless the TNS is into the N bar....!
It must just be the photo angle, surely!

 

[SparkyChick]

Can someone put me out of my misery..... I've seen no outgoing N tail from a meter before, but never no incoming N tail.
Where is the supplier side N incoming meter tail? And what is that short loop out and back to the cut-out doing?
Sorry if I'm being thick!

View attachment 100706

The cut out is connected to the meter using a security cable set... I believe it's split concentric and essentially presents the line and neutral as metal pins out of the top of the block under the meter with the white label/red writing. At the service head end, they come in various flavours I believe... the one in the picture has a neutral tail coming out the top... for more modern service heads which present a flat top surface, it's very much like the meter end... metal pins spaced appropriate for the service head.

Usually installed with pre-payment meters I believe to try and prevent tampering and bypassing by completely blocking off all the terminals that could be used to bypass the meter.

 

[Dartlec]

I do, see attached !

Thanks.

Doesn't greatly throw more light sadly.

the r1, rn, r2 columns should have been completed IMO, even if it was to show no connectivity (>99.9 kOhm for example, depending on the meter).

Looks like that socket circuit supplies the whole house, presumably including the kitchen, so downgrading it to one 20A radial is likely not a good idea, unless there is very little use of kitchen appliances.

Ideally, the fault would be found and the ring resurrected. Failing that, it might be possible to split into two 20A radials.

With that few sockets and good access, I would have thought that a couple of hours would be enough to fully identify the problem and the best solution.

The tester may already have the information to correct the fault, so worth seeing what they quote for it.

I would certainly seek other quotes for the work if you think they are

I would not say that a new consumer unit was necessary (though it would add some benefits), so no reason the legally required remedial work needs to be too expensive.

 

[LEighLeigh]

anyone know what the worst case scenario fix would be? rewire?

 

[Dartlec]

anyone know what the worst case scenario fix would be? rewire?

To get a satisfactory EICR, then I'd guess the worst case might be a new length of cable between two sockets.

It's more likely to be a case of either rejig cables behind an existing socket, or possibly blanking off one and disconnecting part of the circuit.

Unless the cable is very old (older than 1970s) or physically damaged, then a full rewire shouldn't be needed and nothing on the bits of the report we've seen would suggest that there are inherent issues.

There would certainly be benefits in splitting the socket circuits into more than one circuit (say one for kitchen, one for rest of house), but that's a different issue to getting a satisfactory EICR.

 

[LEighLeigh]

To get a satisfactory EICR, then I'd guess the worst case might be a new length of cable between two sockets.

It's more likely to be a case of either rejig cables behind an existing socket, or possibly blanking off one and disconnecting part of the circuit.

Unless the cable is very old (older than 1970s) or physically damaged, then a full rewire shouldn't be needed and nothing on the bits of the report we've seen would suggest that there are inherent issues.

There would certainly be benefits in splitting the socket circuits into more than one circuit (say one for kitchen, one for rest of house), but that's a different issue to getting a satisfactory EICR.

thank you so much, really appreciate the reply

 

[pc1966]

Downstairs recently there was a 'false wall' put in which sits 2 inches in front on the old wall, two sockets had to be moved, now one doesn't work.

That most likely explains it, and I bet it was the builder and not an electrician that did the sockets.

Also it should be fixed anyway, as anyone in the propery is going to have deep suspicions of the soundness of the electrics if they find stuff that is not working as expected.

I think the sockets do cover the kitchen, but not entirely sure. I'll try and get a picture of the CU tomorrow.

As above, if it is basically the whole house then your best+cheapest plan is to have the RFC restored to good operation.

If doing it from scratch most would put in a separate circuit for the kitchen given it has the majority of heavy electrical loads in most cases.

So by law I guess I do have to have a competent person undertake the FI too

Simple logic would dictate that someone who is incompetent should not be doing electrical work!

However as far as meeting the regulations and protecting yourself are concerned you would need the resulting remedial work to be done by someone professional who can test and certify the resulting repairs.

 

[pc1966]

anyone know what the worst case scenario fix would be? rewire?

@Dartlec has covered most of the points.

The only remaining issue is the poor IP rating mentioned. Some pictures of the CU showing top/sides/bottom should help folks here advise if it can be fixed without a new CU by patching any holes or fitting cable glands.

Worst case is it has a massive hole due to a hammer-style cable entry point being created and so needs replacing. But if done reasonably well originally it might just be the top has cables with grommets that allow too much entry, and they can be replaced with a better seal.