EICR - Applying regs retrospectively

[dingdong]

Just had an EICR done and C2 (dangerous) applied to 3-way consumer unit which is exclusively for 3 x Storage Heaters. Pic below.

Yes its plastic, and fused BUT compliant with the regs at the time it was installed and is not in dangerous condition.

Should be a C3 as recommended to replace with CU & RCBOs compliant with current regs.

The regs state "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."

Electrician wont budge and am minded not to pay him as he has interpreted the regs incorrectly and raise as complaint with NAPIT.

So why has this been marked as a C2? What you you award it?

 

[westward10]

What does the Code 2 actually state?

 

[dingdong]

What does the Code 2 actually state?

C2 for IP rating & fire rating of the CU 'cos its plastic and older. Plus C2 as no RCD protection. However, IP rated and metal CUs + RCDs were not required in the regs when the CU was installed. The electrician has put in his cover email that the installation itself is not dangerous....which contradicts the C2 !

 

[westward10]

The fuse shield is there which would rectify the IP rating, looks like it just needs a replacement cover screw. These covers were never intended for IP protection but to prevent hot wire splatter should a rewireable fuse rupture which you don't have. Most electricians would Code 3 the consumer unit being not fire retardant but these things are down to personal judgement. The fact he has stated the installation is not dangerous is indeed a slight contradiction with the Code 2.

 

[snowhead]

He's done the EICR so he is entitled to be paid.

This is for your tenanted property presumably, so you need a satisfactory EICR?

Have you got a wider picture of the C.U showing it's surroundings?

Is the lack of fuse shield the only thing mentioned re I.P rating, no holes in the top, bottom or sides of it?
Is the consumer unit under stairs or in a passageway?

The reg you've quoted uses, This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

 

[dingdong]

He's done the EICR so he is entitled to be paid.

This is for your tenanted property presumably, so you need a satisfactory EICR?

Have you got a wider picture of the C.U showing it's surroundings?

Is the lack of fuse shield the only thing mentioned re I.P rating, no holes in the top, bottom or sides of it?
Is the consumer unit under stairs or in a passageway?

The reg you've quoted uses, This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

The electrician told me that the installation is not compliant with current regs. and has marked the EICR accordingly. This is incorrect and why his EICR is considered not fit for purpose.

Whilst he has backed down on the need to change the CU on the right (plastic), he is refusing to mark the Storage Heater CU on left as C3 as is plastic and does not have RCDs.

The installation is sound and complies with regs. applicable at time of installation. No damage to the CUs, securely fixed etc.

(Covers are back on, blanking plate re-instated etc.)

 

[westward10]

He seems to contradict himself that the plastic CU to the right is fine but the other is not based on it being plastic and no RCD which the majority would deem a Code 3.
Can we see the Report with any personal information redacted.

 

[timhoward]

C2 for IP rating & fire rating of the CU 'cos its plastic and older

It sounds as though it is the IP rating that is the remaining issue.
Logically, if the CU on the right isn't a C2 for not being made of a non-combustible material (reg 421.1.16) then it's tough to argue the one on the left is.

How big is this hole:

Any more like it on the perimeter?
If there are holes in the CU a child could put a finger in then it's a reasonable C2 in my view.

Plus C2 as no RCD protection.

Assuming the heaters are not using plugs and sockets, politely ask which which part of section 411 requires the circuit to be RCD protected.

Napit will tell you to put the complaint in writing to him first, and they will only get involved if this doesn't get anywhere.

 

[westward10]

Good spot @timhoward.

 

[dingdong]

It sounds as though it is the IP rating that is the remaining issue.
Logically, if the CU on the right isn't a C2 for not being made of a non-combustible material (reg 421.1.16) then it's tough to argue the one on the left is.

How big is this hole:
View attachment 111818
Any more like it on the perimeter?
If there are holes in the CU a child could put a finger in then it's a reasonable C2 in my view.


Assuming the heaters are not using plugs and sockets, politely ask which which part of section 411 requires the circuit to be RCD protected.

Napit will tell you to put the complaint in writing to him first, and they will only get involved if this doesn't get anywhere.

Good stuff Tim. The part you circled is not what it seems - its not a hole or damage. Also both CUs are up high (too high for current regs !). Heaters are hard wired. I will ask him re 411. Thanks !

 

[Rockingit]

These are directly lifted from BPG 4 - EICR's

Items worthy of note that do not warrant a classification code (These comments should be recorded on the EICR in the observations section)

• Presence of a consumer unit or similar switchgear made from combustible material (e.g. plastic) that is not inside a non-combustible enclosure and which is NOT:
• Located under wooden staircase, or
• within a sole route of escape from the premises (Note: If unsatisfactory connections are found during inspection, this would warrant a code C2 classification to be recorded

Items that should not be listed as non-compliances with BS 7671 and do not require reporting (Mythbusting)

• The use of rewireable fuses (where they provide adequate circuit protection)

With regards to not paying, I think you can make a fairly sure-footed argument that the inspector was not able to demonstrate the skills required for the service under contract.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Me I would c2, cover not no the old wylex board. Seeing the pic.

 

[cireland]

Is it in the sole means of escape? I may have missed that.

 

[loz2754]

Just to note that the Napit guide "Codebreakers" indicates a C2 is warranted where there are cables buried in walls at a depth of less than 50mm, and no RCD protection for those cables. This would apply to the off peak consumer unit cables if there are any such buried cables. As a Napit member, your inspector may feel bound to follow their own guidance.

Then to add a note to counter that note, the BPG4 quoted above would disagree, recommending only a C3.

Unless you can get the inspector to be more specific as to the C2s given which could argue his case, I suspect he's being a little over zealous.

 

[davesparks]

The installation is sound and complies with regs. applicable at time of installation.

However an EICR is carried out to current regulations not the regulations that were applicable to the original installation.

One of the reasons an EICR is carried out is to identify things which, due to changes in regulations/technology/our understanding of what is safe, can be improved or need to be improved.

Anything which does not comply but would not offer any appreciable safety improvement if it was changed to make it compliant should not be coded on an EICR.
However anything which does not comply and changing it would improve safety should be coded, regardless of whether it complied at the time of installation.

There are multiple reasons why RCD protection is required for circuits and the different reasons can get different codes.
If one of those circuits feeds a heater in a bathroom or if the supply is TT then there could be a strong argument for a C2.

Also, as posted above, NAPIT's official guidance to their members is to give a C2 for a lack of RCD protection to buried cables. So your electrician may well be following guidance from NAPIT and so your complaint to them won't get you anywhere. Plus if course this information will help them immensely when they take you to court for non-payment.

 

[westward10]

Never employ someone to do an EICR who has a Guide in their back pocket.

 

[littlespark]

Never employ someone to do an EICR who has a Guide in their back pocket.

Easier to carry than the entire BBB in the back pocket!

(Big blue book, or big brown book)

 

[westward10]

Easier to carry than the entire BBB in the back pocket!

(Big blue book, or big brown book)

You shouldn't need any of them.

 

[littlespark]

Joking aside about the big books…. But doesn’t the title “ON SITE guide” mean you can carry it with you?

Whether you’re doing an EICR or not… it’s good to have the reference material there if you come across something that isn’t quite black and white.

 

[westward10]

Only had one OSG and that was the very first one.

 

[timhoward]

Then to add a note to counter that note, the BPG4 quoted above would disagree, recommending only a C3.

The further fun fact is that Napit's logo is on BPG4. So they endorse the best practise guide, then publish their own guide which sometimes has different advice.

I've been in Napit 4 years now and rather to my surprise they have never referred me to their Code Breakers book in any way shape or form or tried to sell me one. It's certainly never been described as a set of official guidelines.

I clarified with my assessor 3 years ago that following BPG4 is perfectly valid, and he stated that it's my opinion as the professionally insured person that counts.

It would be interesting to hear back what the exact rationale for RCD protection is.

 

[Rockingit]

However an EICR is carried out to current regulations not the regulations that were applicable to the original installation.

One of the reasons an EICR is carried out is to identify things which, due to changes in regulations/technology/our understanding of what is safe, can be improved or need to be improved.

Anything which does not comply but would not offer any appreciable safety improvement if it was changed to make it compliant should not be coded on an EICR.
However anything which does not comply and changing it would improve safety should be coded, regardless of whether it complied at the time of installation.

The IET sum up this best themselves, right at the first page of GN3: "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with the current edition in every respect but this does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or that they require upgrading. The person or persons carrying out the inspection and testing of such an installation must decide whether the installation is safe for continued use.... The inspector must determine whether any shortcomings are classified as safety issues or recommendations for improvement."

So not necessarily in full agreement with you, but close.

What does become very clear very quickly is that both Napit and the NICEIC must assume a very low base level of skill and judgment on the part of their electricians / inspectors as most of these suggested codings blah blah blah are nothing more than arse cover against litigation.

Every time you put a code against 'cables buried less than...' it's a guess. You've no actual idea what's behind the plaster unless you dig it off the wall - and in doing so would be in breach of 641.4 and 651.2 anyway. Even if there is a buried cable, it's still a judgment call if it poses an actual risk or not - whether commercial or domestic.

We need to remember the fundamental principles behind the codes we use -
1= I'm amazed nobody is dead yet
2= Somebody is likely to die if it continues
3= Not the best, needs looking at but isn't going to harm anyone.

They are not sales codes to generate work!!!!!!

It also brings - again - into question the value of 2391 anymore. When I sat mine, years ago, it was the old one. The hard one, where a pre-existing requirement/assumption was that it was for skilled and experienced electricians already of several years standing who knew their stuff. From what I can make out about the new one, my dog could pass it. OK, maybe not the dog, but the cat would definitely be in with a chance (something about operating a mouse..)

 

[buzzlightyear]

Never employ someone to do an EICR who has a Guide in their back pocket

At he end of the day has long making it safe for those who are involed does not make them a bad person. It's their call not you or me. But the inspector who is testing.

 

[pc1966]

My take on it:

We need to remember the fundamental principles behind the codes we use -
1= I'm amazed nobody is dead yet

It's alive Jim! However, you might not be soon.

2= Somebody is likely to die if it continues

One fault from above.

3= Not the best, needs looking at but isn't going to harm anyone.

Two or more faults

 

[richy3333]

I’d be more concerned about those blanking clips on the main CU.