L
LEighLeigh
Please help, just had a domestic EICR undertaken, a C2 issue: Consumer Unit does not meet minimum I.P rating, what does this mean and how do I check this out? how expensive to rectify? thanks!
the CU has cable entry holes, these should not be > a certain sizeover and above the cables. . i.e. top is 1mm clearance. sides and bottom are finger size. if not too excessive, some filler would suffice to seal. a picture would helpPlease help, just had a domestic EICR undertaken, a C2 issue: Consumer Unit does not meet minimum I.P rating, what does this mean and how do I check this out? how expensive to rectify? thanks!
Yes apologies for that, what does this mean: Circuit forms a Figure of 8 Rather than a complete RFC - is that a C2? He's put FI but in his text msg to me he says that it is a C2, confusedFrom the pic it is impossible to say the extent of the issue.
really appreciate the replay; what does this mean: Circuit forms a Figure of 8 Rather than a complete RFC - do you come across this a lot?FI means further investigation. this leads to an unsatisfactory report, same as a C2, but in a different way.
as regards the CU IP rating. there are several methods costing very little. a piece of plastic could be cut to fit and glued over the offending hole/s. blue tak, filler.anything that would stop penetration of the enclosure to the relevant rating.basically one does not want a customer to be able to poke a finger in and come into contact with live parts.
It could mean that two RFC have been cross-connected, so instead of circuit 1 ends A and B going to MCB1 and circuit 2 ends A and B going to MCB2 you have 1A and 2A on MCB1 and 1B and 2B on MCB2.really appreciate the replay; what does this mean: Circuit forms a Figure of 8 Rather than a complete RFC - do you come across this a lot?
It is indeedI see you're in Swansea... is the property also in Swansea?
OK if it really is just a loop connected to a 2nd loop, less of a concern than cross-linked RFCs.The fact it has been verified as a figure of eight means it doesn't need investigating (FI) it is what it is. A ring final circuit is as it says a ring or a circle a figure of eight is as it says an eight, just imagine them. Is it dangerous, no providing the connections are sound it is just non conventional but does indicate the circuit has undergone non compliant alterations.
Is there any way of telling from the EICR report?OK if it really is just a loop connected to a 2nd loop, less of a concern than cross-linked RFCs.
No, you would need to ask the electrician who did the inspection for some detail on that.Is there any way of telling from the EICR report?
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?No, you would need to ask the electrician who did the inspection for some detail on that.
Given they have said circuit 6 presumably it is a single MCB involved so closer to @westward10 comment.
I guess that would cause the circuit to trip out more than usual?It is still not good for several reasons, one is you can't perform the usual RFC end-end checks and get all/most sockets connections verified that way.
Other point is unless you know where the loops touch you could end up with a lot more of the current on one leg of the circuit so potentially overloading the cable as the RFC typically uses 2.5mm cable rated at 20A (or so, depending on the installation method) but protected by 30A fuse or 32A MCB on the assumption of moderately sane load distribution.
Fixing the circuit is best answer, but if in doubt dropping the MCB to 20A at least removes the risk of cable overload.
Are you based in S Wales also?I see you're in Swansea... is the property also in Swansea?
Without seeing it we can't tell.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?
Does it usually trip?I guess that would cause the circuit to trip out more than usual?
I think that is the answer then, drop the MCB to 20 ADoes 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.
Are you based in S Wales also?
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.I think that is the answer then, drop the MCB to 20 A
You ignore the 50mph through Port Talbot it is half an hour awayYes, but I operate in/around Cardiff and Newport.
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.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?
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.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?
It sounds like the two moved sockets would be a good candidate to start investigating then!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
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...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
I do, see attached !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.
The Henley block makes sense. Thanks, it just caught my eye and looked wrong.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!
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
Thanks.I do, see attached !
To get a satisfactory EICR, then I'd guess the worst case might be a new length of cable between two sockets.anyone know what the worst case scenario fix would be? rewire?
thank you so much, really appreciate the replyTo 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.
That most likely explains it, and I bet it was the builder and not an electrician that did the sockets.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.
As above, if it is basically the whole house then your best+cheapest plan is to have the RFC restored to good operation.I think the sockets do cover the kitchen, but not entirely sure. I'll try and get a picture of the CU tomorrow.
Simple logic would dictate that someone who is incompetent should not be doing electrical work!So by law I guess I do have to have a competent person undertake the FI too
@Dartlec has covered most of the points.anyone know what the worst case scenario fix would be? rewire?