EICR - Certificate, do I need to change my CU?

[shopping]

Hi All,

My first post - starting with a question and looking for your help/guidance.

I'm looking to rent out my house 4 bed mid-terraced and I am looking to have an EICR certification done.
Reading it seems I don't have to change the CU but the electrician says I will have to as I am going to be letting the place out.

This CU was installed in 2013 it's in the Kitchen within a wooden shelf cabinet. Pictures attached. Kindly share your thoughts. Many thanks.

 

[littlespark]

An EICR is purely to ascertain whether an installation is safe for continued use... Its either Satisfactory, or not.

It is not there to say whether a property is suitable for renting out or not....... Some electricians will code more severely for rental properties, as they think it will come back on them if anything was to happen to a tenant down the line.


As far as i can see, all the circuits are covered by an RCD... which is the where the majority of the report would be looking at.

However, saying that, if the RCD's do not trip in the specified time limit, then that would be unsatisfactory on the report.

They may say that the consumer unit needs to be metal.... New installations, yes, but for existing, a plastic consumer unit is still allowed.

They may also say that the consumer unit is inaccessible where it is inside a cupboard.... but it would be a huge job to move it.
Although i cant tell how inaccessible it is by just that photo.


So, visually.... i cant see anything wrong... but the in depth testing of the circuits and more detailed visual inspection might bring up underlying issues which may in turn lead to the board having to be changed anyway..... but without actual testing, that cannot be determined.

 

[Simon47]

As already said, many will say "must be steel" so needs to be changed. I challenged the IET directly over the utterly incompetent way this is specified in the regs - and how it would appear to immediately make "many" new installations non compliant.

What I got back was a statement that's not an official statement !

My reason was that I'd recently updated the CUs in both my rental properties, all RCBO so going beyond requirements - so "not happy" at the prospect of scrapping nearly new CUs because LFB can't spot the connection between a rise in electrical fires and the rise in smart meters installed by people dragged off the street and given 5 mins training (and leaving loise connections through incompetence).

The advice given was that if everything else was in order then at most it would be a C3 if it was located in the only escape route from the property, including under wooden stairs. But otherwise to not even note it as an observation.

So if someone tells you "needs new CU" just because it's plastic, then that should make you question their competency.
But as already said, there could be other reasons to change it.

 

[brianmoooore]

I would code a plastic CU as a C3, because it contravenes the current version of BS7671, although, as said above, there may still be reasons to replace it, such as physical damage to its case or the need to replace internal components that are no longer available.
It is not at all unusual to complete an installation that is fully compliant, only for it to become non compliant a few weeks later.
One common 'other reason to change it' is for financial gain. There's not a lot of money to be made of off a properly conducted EICR, largely due to the low prices being charged for EICRs that are NOT properly conducted, so a nice little earner like a remedial CU change can make up the shortfall.

 

[littlespark]

In addition to Brians post....

A proper EICR should take between 3 and 4 hours on site for an average 3 bed house. Give or take, if theres either a lot of things that need more inspection, or its a relatively new build with no apparent alterations.... It will also require the cover off the board, power off to the property... a number of sockets, lights switches removed for testing at the cables.... If none of that is done, then its fair to say its not a proper report.

half an hour isnt a realistic timeframe.

You do not have to use the same company for the remedials that did the EICR in the first place.....

 

[James]

As already said, many will say "must be steel" so needs to be changed. I challenged the IET directly over the utterly incompetent way this is specified in the regs - and how it would appear to immediately make "many" new installations non compliant.

What I got back was a statement that's not an official statement !

My reason was that I'd recently updated the CUs in both my rental properties, all RCBO so going beyond requirements - so "not happy" at the prospect of scrapping nearly new CUs because LFB can't spot the connection between a rise in electrical fires and the rise in smart meters installed by people dragged off the street and given 5 mins training (and leaving loise connections through incompetence).

The advice given was that if everything else was in order then at most it would be a C3 if it was located in the only escape route from the property, including under wooden stairs. But otherwise to not even note it as an observation.

So if someone tells you "needs new CU" just because it's plastic, then that should make you question their competency.
But as already said, there could be other reasons to change it.

unfortunately there are also a great deal of "competent" electricians who will code a plastic consumer unit as C2 for one of the following (unjust) reasons.

1. scared of any comeback because someone thinks they have coded wrong (easy fix, go on the side of overcautious)
2. cash grab, i.e. tell them it needs a new consumer unit and 8 of 10 will say "get it done, tenants move in on tuesday"

There are lots of competent electricians that are great at installing new stuff to the reg's but have not been in the trade long enough to have learnt how things used to be done and appreciate how an installation could still be considered safe, even if it will not comply with the current reg's

the analogy that springs to mind is the MOT
they don't fail all cars for lack of airbags
or ABS
or even seatbelts.

however, it is almost impossible to fit say an E type Jag with airbags and seatbelts etc. it is not that hard to improve the safety of a dwelling by bringing the consumer unit up to modern standards.

If the money is available, I would spend it on a new consumer unit and any other defects that need rectifying but out of principal would not give the job to the spark that told you it had to be done.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

The OP doesn't give lots of info.
There's a chance that the electrician did one or 2 tests, had a look at the CU and said something like 'it's probably best to change it'. It could be full of large holes, top, bottom and side. Maybe the test buttons aren't working, failed RCD tests etc. Maybe he took the lid off and saw a thermal mess.
Probably none of the above, but we never really know for sure.
I think if I was going to rent a house out I would want it to be as safe as possible.

Plus, it looks like there's a great big gap behind the CU where fingers could maybe reach into the back, where the cables enter. Not a reason to change the CU, but pretty important. I realise there are some overly zealous electricians who may code a C3 as a C2, and this is wrong, but I feel the emphasis and discussion should always be leaning towards safety rather than focusing on finding ways to make it a C3.

 

[littlespark]

All good opinions, and we will see what the OP decides to do

 

[Simon47]

There are lots of competent electricians that are great at installing new stuff to the reg's but have not been in the trade long enough to have learnt how things used to be done and appreciate how an installation could still be considered safe, even if it will not comply with the current reg's

I would say of them that they may well be competent to do installation work, but they are not competent to be doing inspection work on anything not installed to the current standards. And given the timescales involved, that more or less excludes most EICRs.
Perhaps a bit harsh, but ...

 

[shopping]

Thank you to everyone for your comments and opinions.

So far I've spoken with three different electricians who've asked for pictures that I've shared above and all have said First thing is to change the CU to the newer standards/version.

They have not come around, done any inspection, lifted the cover etc. It's all just by seeing the pictures.

From my own research I did gather the same opinions - it doesn't need replacing if it's all in good working condition and not showing any signs of thermal mess, or holes etc.

It does need trunking of wires, agreed so they're not easily accessible.

I am yet to appoint an electrician to come around and do an inspection and to take it from there but for now I'll leave this topic here and add when I have some updates.

Thank you all again for your time and comments.

 

[westward10]

Ask them to quote where it states it needs replacing.

 

[littlespark]

Where in Uk are you? There might be a forum member nearby who would be prepared to come out and actually quote properly.

 

[shopping]

Where in Uk are you? There might be a forum member nearby who would be prepared to come out and actually quote properly.

Good point.

I am based in SE London, SE18 to be precise.

 

[Tom256]

Inspection reports should be presented using objective language on the condition of the installation all supported by quoted regulation. The report should not be written offering remedial options.
Example: 'Consumer unit needs replacing' is a subjective comment and is not in keeping with how a competent report on the condition of the installation for safe continued use would be presented.
Reports should not be presented as a 'foot in the door' for further work, indeed, the inspector should have no motive in mind for obtaining any further work from the task.

 

[westward10]

There is no need to quote Regulations.

 

[Tom256]

There is no need to quote Regulations.

That is true.
I base my comment on the use of the word 'Should' [as defined BS7671]. I base it on what I learnt from an old VOSA Inspector many years ago on his position that applied when perhaps taking a HGV off the road and the implications such would create.
He would say if I am confident in my position I should be able to support it. That way, he would say, if challanged they are not challanging me but they are challanging the regulation and the statute that enables them.

I worked for a time in a legal role and I have taken such forward into the importance of wording within any documentation presented to a client as a position open to challange with potentialy serious consequences should such be incorrect. Indemnity is always a consideration of a report presented.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

That is true.
I base my comment on the use of the word 'Should' [as defined BS7671]. I base it on what I learnt from an old VOSA Inspector many years ago on his position that applied when perhaps taking a HGV off the road and the implications such would create.
He would say if I am confident in my position I should be able to support it. That way, he would say, if challanged they are not challanging me but they are challanging the regulation and the statute that enables them.

I worked for a time in a legal role and I have taken such forward into the importance of wording within any documentation presented to a client as a position open to challange with potentialy serious consequences should such be incorrect. Indemnity is always a consideration of a report presented.

You can tell you worked in a legal role. Your posts are like reading BS7671. Although they make less spelling errors

 

[pirate]

that would be "fewer", not "less" !

 

[littlespark]

Pedantic Pirate strikes again!

 

[pirate]

Pedantic Pirate Pounces Persistently!

As my English teacher often said
"Always avoid alliteration"