EICR and RCD's. Is it a C2 or C3?

[Deleted account]

Based on that EICR. Coding should be C3 unless there is something not included on the EICR that should be.

 

[Andy78]

RCD protection for bathrooms and domestic lighting circuits ticked, but no RCDs on the test schedule ? But RCD testing and functional testing ticked ?

 

[Victor Poon]

That's all I have. Apart from a quotation to replace "fuseboard".
So do I spend many hundreds of pounds to replace the Consumer Unit?
Of course ideally ALL Consumer Units in every household should meet current regulations. This is not realistic. The bottom line is C2 (Potentially Dangerous) applicable given the data?

If a number of forum member have a c2 (potentially dangerous) opinion I will change the Consumer Unit.

Thanks for all your feedback....

 

[westward10]

Did the same person do both Reports?

 

[Victor Poon]

No. Couldn't find the guy before.

 

[Deleted account]

C3 is improvement recomended
So I am voting for upgrade

 

[Nigel]

This is a redacted EICR. Uploaded as suggested.
Many thanks.

That EICR is not correct.

One example is he has implied RCDs are required for fault protection in your property. Looking at the results he has recorded they are not.

Secondly cables butied in a wall without RCD protection is never a C2.

I would send an email of complaint.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Another EICR where the inspector believes RCDs are required for fault protection.

 

[Deleted member 72666]

Get the inspector to re issue that report as it's never an unsatisfactory c2 in a million years!

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Why would a landlord be responsible for stupid children and lazy parents?

If you have to ask that question then I don't think you'd really be able to understand the answer so probably best not to go into it.

 

[westward10]

You do not base findings in an EICR predicting the actions of a child. Your findings are based upon BS7671 which does not differentiate between a child and an adult.

 

[bill01803]

According to the tick sheet there is supplementary bonding in the bathroom so no rcd required there. There is also IR values in L-N column, so everything got disconnected, all lamps removed etc to preform this test - I don't think so.
I would complain to NAPIT as the standard of the report is poor with unwarranted C2s.
All said though a board upgrade is a good recommend.

 

[Risteard]

According to the tick sheet there is supplementary bonding in the bathroom so no rcd required there. There is also IR values in L-N column, so everything got disconnected, all lamps removed etc to preform this test - I don't think so.
I would complain to NAPIT as the standard of the report is poor with unwarranted C2s.
All said though a board upgrade is a good recommend.

Supplementary bonding does not remove the requirement for RCD protection of bathroom circuits. 30mA RCD protection of bathroom circuits may well remove the requirement for supplementary bonding though.

 

[Richsand007]

Without personally inspecting the property it’s difficult to know what has been discovered or missed by the previous inspection. I may issues a code 2, if for example,
1. Socket installed too close to a sink which can potentially be splashed
2. Any signed of water ingress
3. TT earthing system have no RCD protection
4. Outside socket (balconied) or potential to plug in and use an device outside.
5. High Zs reading not protected by RCD
6. No mechanical protected for cables (concealed <50mm, in metal framed partition, or otherwise)
7. Socket within 3m of zone 1
Or any other general safety conserns that want a risk assessment for admission of RCD (reg 411.3.3)

The fact that it’s probably got code 3 5 years ago and the recommendation goes ignored. Most people translate c3 to satisfactory and just ignore then until they get worse or C2s.

 

[MG201]

Just wait till u get it tested again in 5 years and they put C2 no AFDD’s on bedroom circuits :0

 

[Baddegg]

If you have the eicr from 5 years previous did the spark ask to see it? As he’s ticked date of last inspection unknown but you say 5 years?

 

[MG201]

Would it not be a c3 for sockets not exceeding 32A and a C2 for cables concealed within wall, that’s according to the NAPIT CODEBREAKERS

 

[MG201]

No mention of BATHROOM LIGHT IP RATIng

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Supplementary bonding does not remove the requirement for RCD protection of bathroom circuits. 30mA RCD protection of bathroom circuits may well remove the requirement for supplementary bonding though.

The tick sheet says there is RCD protection for the bathroom circuits.

 

[MG201]

The tick sheet says there is RCD protection for the bathroom circuits.

Q1 it says u have 10 mmm main tails these are usually 25 or 16 min
If they are 10mm this is a C2 as they are undersized
Q2 report says u have AFDDs and surge protection
Defo not
Q3 did he inspect below the floors and above ceilings
Q4 did he carry out R1+ R2 tests as the numbers are exactly ZS-ZE
Q5 cable type 1 on report there is no type 1 it should be A
The values on the report are wrong 5.88 ??
You should send that report to NAPIT and ask for their comment and if possible post the response on the forum,,
The quality of testing is always a question raised ,
There is no rcd test results on his results
And he says there is rcd test notifications labels