EICR fail: No RCD Protection for lights etc.

[Pthomsk1]

I am a landlord and my managing estate agent just recently organised an electrician to carry out EICR. Came back as unsatisfactory, no RCD protection on: lights, smoke alarm, door bell and immersion heater. There is RCD protection on sockets and cooker. Electrician suggests changing the board. Is there an alternative eg. Adding another RCD to the current board? I was also worried that putting in a new board could cause other faults in the house that would then need remedying. House is mid 1990s construction.

 

[Eddy Currents]

A picture of your consumer unit and EICR with personal details redacted would help?

Also a CU change would not "cause" faults but simply highlight existing faults an old CU might not

You might think it is OK to leave faults in an electrical installation as long as you don't know about them because you are then forced to get them fixed which is very irresponsible and you are just leaving faults only to be discovered by your tenants which could have disastrous consequences

It is fixing these faults which could easily save someones life and it is your responsibility as a landlord to ensure your installation is safe which is the idea of an EICR

 

[littlespark]

Check the report for other C1 or C2 codes.

Having no rcd on those circuits wouldn’t normally merit an unsatisfactory report but would simply be a C3: improvement recommended.

Although the electrician may code on the strict side as it’s a rental property.

 

[cliffed]

Check the report for other C1 or C2 codes.

Having no rcd on those circuits wouldn’t normally merit an unsatisfactory report but would simply be a C3: improvement recommended.

Although the electrician may code on the strict side as it’s a rental property.

Agree thinking C2 for cabling in walls not Rcd protection that’s the Code Breakers code though… C3?

 

[Pthomsk1]

Agree thinking C2 for cabling in walls not Rcd protection that’s the Code Breakers code though… C3?

I’ve added the consumer unit and the fails on the report, no issues with cables.

 

[Pthomsk1]

Check the report for other C1 or C2 codes.

Having no rcd on those circuits wouldn’t normally merit an unsatisfactory report but would simply be a C3: improvement recommended.

Although the electrician may code on the strict side as it’s a rental property.

Could be, not sure.

 

[Pthomsk1]

A picture of your consumer unit and EICR with personal details redacted would help?

Also a CU change would not "cause" faults but simply highlight existing faults an old CU might not

You might think it is OK to leave faults in an electrical installation as long as you don't know about them because you are then forced to get them fixed which is very irresponsible and you are just leaving faults only to be discovered by your tenants which could have disastrous consequences

It is fixing these faults which could easily save someones life and it is your responsibility as a landlord to ensure your installation is safe which is the idea of an EICR

I’ve added the photo of the consumer unit and summary of fails.

 

[timhoward]

Looking at the observations....
If the existing RCD doesn't work, then I'd say that's a valid C2.
If the complaint is that all the circuits on the right have no RCD protection, then most people would judge that to be a C3 issue.

I'd suggest downloading the (free) best practise guide 4, read page 14, and ask the person who carried out the report whether there are good reasons the advice in BPG4 isn't being followed.

https://www.----------------------------/media/2149/bpg4-1.pdf

My informal opinion would be that there are some benefits of a board change (having lighting RCD protected so people changing bulbs have a little extra protection, having more modern Type A RCD technology, faults only taking out a single circuit, adding surge protection) but that is not the same as saying that it is potentially dangerous for the current installation to remain in service.

Can you clarify which are coded as C2 as it appears to be off the photograph.

 

[Pthomsk1]

Looking at the observations....
If the existing RCD doesn't work, then I'd say that's a valid C2.
If the complaint is that all the circuits on the right have no RCD protection, then most people would judge that to be a C3 issue.

I'd suggest downloading the (free) best practise guide 4, read page 14, and ask the person who carried out the report whether there are good reasons the advice in BPG4 isn't being followed.

https://www.----------------------------/media/2149/bpg4-1.pdf

My informal opinion would be that there are some benefits of a board change (having lighting RCD protected so people changing bulbs have a little extra protection, having more modern Type A RCD technology, faults only taking out a single circuit, adding surge protection) but that is not the same as saying that it is potentially dangerous for the current installation to remain in service.

Can you clarify which are coded as C2 as it appears to be off the photograph.

Hi Tim, the C2s I got we’re for all the red circuits that weren’t RCD protected. There’s no more information than is on the summary page other than in the relevant section it says c2

 

[Pthomsk1]

See the part 12, I think the RCD are working for cooler and sockets

 

[timhoward]

I've chopped off information that would identify the company and contractor.

I'm afraid there are some concerns about that schedule of test results.
There is certainly nothing on there to say the RCD works, there is no test data recorded for the RCD at all, not even that the test button works.
My top concern - there are some circuits that apparently had no R1+R2, R2 or Zs test which means there is no way of knowing that the protective device will trip under fault conditions, which is rather a fundamental aspect of testing.
My other big concern - if we believe the figures, there is one sockets circuit that has VERY low insulation resistance suggesting poor condition or damaged wiring and that would have raised concerns for me, and I'd have given that a C2.

One of two things happened. He either did an incomplete and in my opinion not very competent job, or he found enough things wrong to make it rather pointless continuing testing and stopped short.

Personally I wouldn't proceed with any recommended remedial work based on such incomplete test data.

Would you mind sharing your approximate location? There may be members nearby who can help resolve this.

 

[littlespark]

Gotta love the “N/A” for number of points served.

How hard is it to count sockets?

 

[pc1966]

My other big concern - if we believe the figures, there is one sockets circuit that has VERY low insulation resistance suggesting poor condition or damaged wiring and that would have raised concerns for me, and I'd have given that a C2.

If that really is the wiring then very worrying, but it could be the result of something like a surge-protecting extension block still being plugged in somewhere to that set of sockets. Or maybe a boiler with built-in SPD on a FCU somewhere, etc.

The lack of other info like RCD trip times, or R1+R2 on any other circuit, is not encouraging.

 

[pc1966]

Agree thinking C2 for cabling in walls not Rcd protection that’s the Code Breakers code though… C3?

I think Code Breakers has C2 for anything they can possibly think of. The BPG #4 guidance seems more sane, and it is signed off by the same organisation. Go figure!

 

[littlespark]

There’s another current thread that mentions with EICRs, if it complied at the time it was put in, but not now, it’s a C3….. if it never complied, then it’s the C1, C2….

Although it is down to the person doing the test at the time, and being rental, he may aim to get things changed to be safe as possible.

The faulty RCDs would of course bring a C2. Potentially dangerous. If there is a serious fault, the rcd may not trip, resulting in injury.

 

[timhoward]

Although it is down to the person doing the test at the time, and being rental, he may aim to get things changed to be safe as possible.

The thing is, it should be about electrical safety for continue use, not personal preferences about installing the latest gear.

The faulty RCDs would of course bring a C2. Potentially dangerous. If there is a serious fault, the rcd may not trip, resulting in injury.

I'm with you there. The main thing this one swings on is whether that RCD works.
I'm thinking it likely that he started with sockets, then found the RCD issue. I'd have personally tested the rest anyway, as there are parts readily available for that board.

 

[westward10]

Gotta love the “N/A” for number of points served.

How hard is it to count sockets?

Maybe it was above five and the other hand was scratching his head.

 

[Pthomsk1]

View attachment 105289
I've chopped off information that would identify the company and contractor.

I'm afraid there are some concerns about that schedule of test results.
There is certainly nothing on there to say the RCD works, there is no test data recorded for the RCD at all, not even that the test button works.
My top concern - there are some circuits that apparently had no R1+R2, R2 or Zs test which means there is no way of knowing that the protective device will trip under fault conditions, which is rather a fundamental aspect of testing.
My other big concern - if we believe the figures, there is one sockets circuit that has VERY low insulation resistance suggesting poor condition or damaged wiring and that would have raised concerns for me, and I'd have given that a C2.

One of two things happened. He either did an incomplete and in my opinion not very competent job, or he found enough things wrong to make it rather pointless continuing testing and stopped short.

Personally I wouldn't proceed with any recommended remedial work based on such incomplete test data.

Would you mind sharing your approximate location? There may be members nearby who can help resolve this.

Cardiff

 

[brianmoooore]

In what reality is most of that NA?? Meaningless test result sheet.
Observation sheet says RCD faulty, without any indication of why, but if it is, then that's a C2, which could conceivably expand into a board change if a suitable replacement is unavailable.

 

[Pthomsk1]

In what reality is most of that NA?? Meaningless test result sheet.
Observation sheet says RCD faulty, without any indication of why, but if it is, then that's a C2, which could conceivably expand into a board change if a suitable replacement is unavailable.

I think the faulty part is that RCD protection does not exist for light, immersion, smoke alarm, doorbell. Might be wrong.