Confusing EICR, 'Satisfactory' assessment but C1 present

[Ruby B]

As a newbie to this forum, I'm hoping that someone can help me understand a particular aspect of the EICR that was done on behalf of the previous owners of my current house. At the time (which I admit was some while ago) I was slightly confused by it but in all the chaos of buying the house, I put it to the back of my mind.
The summary (section E) states that the condition is 'Good' and that the overall assessment is 'Satisfactory'; however, there is a code C1 in section K Observations on the kitchen sockets circuit which says 'Excessive loop impedance' (further investigation required = No). This seems to contradict the 'satisfactory' assessment?
Also, looking at that particular circuit's details, it says Max permitted Zs of 1.09 and Maximum measured earth fault loop impedance of 0.82. I don't claim to understand what this is so in my simplistic way, 0.82 is less than the maximum so isn't that OK? There is an entry for the other sockets which also has a Max permitted of 1.09 and a measure of 0.76 so not too dissimilar.
I would be grateful if anyone could tell me if the installation should have been marked as 'unsatisfactory'. Thanks

 

[SparkyChick]

Welcome to the forums.

If it was truly a C1, the report cannot be satisfactory period.

However, based on the figures you have quoted, I would say there is nothing wrong.

 

[SparkyChick]

But, I'll add to that... without seeing the rest of the figures on the schedule of results, it is possible the measured value is higher than what one would expect based on other test results.

This could be an indication of an issue that might need addressing.

 

[The Ghost]

I guess an EICR was done and there was a C1 for something that was subsequently remedied and when the certificate was re-issued there was a glitch and they forgot to take out the C1. Just a guess mind but it can happen.

 

[SparkyChick]

I guess an EICR was done and there was a C1 for something that was subsequently remedied and when the certificate was re-issued there was a glitch and they forgot to take out the C1. Just a guess mind but it can happen.

Good shout, I didn't even think of that.

 

[Strima]

It’ll be a typo.

 

[Ruby B]

Thanks to you both for your speedy responses. I am going to contact the electrician that did the report and see if it was the case that the C1 was rectified, though as I said, it was some time ago (2014). Do electricians have to keep all these reports or register them somewhere, i.e. would they know if they'd reissued a certificate from that long ago?

 

[Andy78]

My software can do that. If I enter a C1 by mistake on the inspection schedule for example, it will insert a generic entry in the observation section. Even if I correct the code on the inspection schedule I would have to manually delete the entry in the observation section.

 

[Risteard]

Could you clarify first why you are concerned with a Report from five years ago?

 

[Ruby B]

You're right Risteard, it's from 4 and a half years ago and at the time, I looked at the 'satisfactory' and at the figures which seemed to contradict the C1 (not that I'm electrically qualified in any way, shape or form) and put it to the back of my mind. It's just that today I was looking for some other documentation relating to the purchase of my house and came across the EICR which prompted this post. I will probably be selling the house in maybe the next 5 years but was wondering whether I should have another EICR done now or wait until closer to the time I sell.

 

[Ruby B]

Andy78, you may have hit the nail on the head. The entry in section K looks like it may have been auto generated as it says DB 1_7/L1_Sockets kitchen_Excessive Earth Loop Impedance where DB 1 is the distribution board designation, 7/L1 is the circuit number and phase and Sockets kitchen is the circuit designation. The software is FastTest Pro 17th edition (printed at the bottom of the page). If you entered a measured value greater than the max permitted but then changed it, would it generate such an entry?

 

[Risteard]

You're right Risteard, it's from 4 and a half years ago and at the time, I looked at the 'satisfactory' and at the figures which seemed to contradict the C1 (not that I'm electrically qualified in any way, shape or form) and put it to the back of my mind. It's just that today I was looking for some other documentation relating to the purchase of my house and came across the EICR which prompted this post. I will probably be selling the house in maybe the next 5 years but was wondering whether I should have another EICR done now or wait until closer to the time I sell.

There should be a recommended interval for the next inspection written within that Report.

 

[The Ghost]

In any event when you do sell and if you pass on that certificate it may be picked up and cause a major head ache. So at some point it needs to be superseded by a new certificate to avoid that headache. At the same time as @SparkyChick has opined there may be a need for investigation to be sure the circuit is not defective and that new EICR would put paid to that as well, hitting two birds with one stone.

 

[GeorgeCooke]

You're right Risteard, it's from 4 and a half years ago and at the time, I looked at the 'satisfactory' and at the figures which seemed to contradict the C1 (not that I'm electrically qualified in any way, shape or form) and put it to the back of my mind. It's just that today I was looking for some other documentation relating to the purchase of my house and came across the EICR which prompted this post. I will probably be selling the house in maybe the next 5 years but was wondering whether I should have another EICR done now or wait until closer to the time I sell.

You don't need an EICR to sell a house. If the buyer wants one it is up to him/her to commission it just like any other surveys required.

 

[telectrix]

You don't need an EICR to sell a house. If the buyer wants one it is up to him/her to commission it just like any other surveys required.

but having an up to date EICR will make the deal sweeter to the prospective buyer.

 

[Midwest]

You don't need an EICR to sell a house. If the buyer wants one it is up to him/her to commission it just like any other surveys required.

Your right of course. But having sold my house recently, you fill in a questionaire. It’s some sort of legal document which you sign. One of the questions it asks, is are their any EICR’s etc available for the property.

 

[The Ghost]

You don't need an EICR to sell a house. However if a defective EICR comes up in the mix it can be a major headache sorting it out. Depends on who is do the conveyancing. Last house I sold the solicitors for the buyer were insanely obsessed with the conservatory asking two pages of questions about it's compliance and planning and Fensa guarantee and on and on it went it was a pain. Just saying a new EICR will cover it in this particular case.

 

[Ruby B]

Thanks for all your replies, I appreciate it. On Risteard's prompt, I went back and checked the date recommended for next inspection and it was 1 and a half years ago, i.e. 3 years after the date of the report. Now I don't know if that was auto generated by software based on the presence of a C1 or whether it was because the house and therefore the installation would be 30 years old at that date, as I understand normal recommendations are at least every 10 years. There are also other anomalies on the report that I've now noticed such as section D states that it is a 'limited condition report' but does not say what the limitations are.
So I've decided just to get another one done soon for my peace of mind. I know that legally it's not required when you sell your house but I think most buyers expect it now just as they expect the gas appliances to have been serviced. As a buyer myself, I think it's a reasonable expectation for safety reasons.

 

[westward10]

From what you are saying I wouldn't have too much faith in the old Report so it would be wise to get another one done.

 

[sheppertonspark]

Is the circuit protected by a 30mA RCD ? If the answer is yes then the results are pretty un-inportant. Maximum Zs is 1666 ohms. In practise a reading over 200 ohms woukd be considered unstable. Sorry if I've confused things. By the way if it has no 30mA RCD protection then that would be more of a concern.

 

[Ruby B]

Is the circuit protected by a 30mA RCD ? If the answer is yes then the results are pretty un-inportant. Maximum Zs is 1666 ohms. In practise a reading over 200 ohms woukd be considered unstable. Sorry if I've confused things. By the way if it has no 30mA RCD protection then that would be more of a concern.

There is an RCD in the Consumer Unit (see pic). I'm assuming it's protecting the 5 circuits to the left of it but not the 2 lighting circuits to the right?

 

[westward10]

Another electrician who cannot spell immersion heater but yes you are correct.

 

[Ruby B]

Another electrician who cannot spell immersion heater but yes you are correct.

I guess now you know I haven't tested it recently as otherwise I would have known! As for the immersion heater, there isn't one...but presumably there was at some time. I believe that circuit is just for the shower pump (which has also now gone so I could probably just turn that one off).

 

[sheppertonspark]

Press the test button on the RCD, if it works OK then stop worrying yourself.

 

[Ruby B]

Press the test button on the RCD, if it works OK then stop worrying yourself.

Tested and working

 

[Pete999]

Press the test button on the RCD, if it works OK then stop worrying yourself.

By pressing the button on an RCD all you are doing is checking the mechanics of the unit, not the electrical/electronics.

 

[SparkyChick]

By pressing the button on an RCD all you are doing is checking the mechanics of the unit, not the electrical/electronics.

This crops up frequently and I believe is an incorrect statement.

If you look at the circuit diagrams for RCDs, the test button introduces a resistor connected between the load side line and supply side neutral to create an imbalance akin to that which it is designed to detect. This is why the test button is non-operational when the power is off, it requires power to create the imbalance rather than simply triggering the release mechanism.

 

[Pete999]

This crops up frequently and I believe is an incorrect statement.

If you look at the circuit diagrams for RCDs, the test button introduces a resistor connected between the load side line and supply side neutral to create an imbalance akin to that which it is designed to detect. This is why the test button is non-operational when the power is off, it requires power to create the imbalance rather than simply triggering the release mechanism.

Does pressing the test button prove that the RCD trips within the prescribed parameters? No, all it does is prove the mechanism works, if it were to trip under fault conditions, testing it by pressing the test button will only prove the mechanics are clear of debris.

 

[SparkyChick]

Does pressing the test button prove that the RCD trips within the prescribed parameters? No, all it does is prove the mechanism works, if it were to trip under fault conditions, testing it by pressing the test button will only prove the mechanics are clear of debris.

I didn't claim it did, I was merely pointing out that the test button is far from a purely mechanical test as suggested by your post to which I was replying.

It's not just you that has said this. As I said, the statement 'it's a mechanical test only' or words to that effect crops up from time to time and it is factually incorrect because it is not a purely mechanical test. The test button verifies the operation of the detection and trigger electronics, whether that operation falls within the parameters we consider to be acceptable is another matter, but none the less, if the test button works, the RCD is detecting an imbalance greater than or equal to it's rated trip current and is tripping.