EICR Certificate not issued. Not all circuits RCD protected rated C2

[Grant1987]

Well I stated that on the basis of that one post, you did not appear to have the right attitude for doing EICRs. As you point out, and I acknowledged at the time, I can only go off what you write. Your post suggested that all non-compliances must be upgraded and that's the approach you would take with any EICR - which others here have suggested is rubbish (so it's not just a greedy money grabbing landlord's PoV )
As an aside, last year I spent a considerable amount on upgrading the smoke alarm beyond the required "one detector per habitable floor" - adding a non-mandatory heat & CO in the kitchen and a heat in the garage. And a while ago I upgraded both my properties to all RCBO before "RCDs for everything" was a requirement. So you can wind in your "penny pinching landlord" comments - either that or quote examples that support your viewpoint.

That's simple. If you sign a certificate that says "this installation had been designed, installed, and tested, to comply with BS7671-whatever" then it is fraud if you know OR SHOULD REASONABLY KNOW that such statement is false. That is one half of the definition of fraud in the fraud act - making a statement that is, or you should reasonably know is, false.
The other half is that it should be for fiduciary gain (whether for yourself or for others), or to cause another a loss. In the case of the electrical contractor signing off on a new build, the gain is getting paid for it.
And yes, the deviations from BS7671 are such that no competent electrician could be ignorant of the applicable regs. Unless you would suggest that an electrician not familiar with 522.6.202 can be considered competent to design and install a system ?
I would suggest that apart from having been done to different versions, many newbuilds these days are of significantly lower workmanship than you would find a few decades ago. Obviously that's an "on average" thing - there will be some new ones done well, and some older ones done poorly, but overall I'd say standards of workmanship have fallen steadily over the years. I think we all know why - the dive for the bottom of the swamp in pricing and the resultant penny pinching that goes with it. As an example, do you think it is "good workmanship" to make no practical provision for electric cooking during the install ? On the plumbing side, you'll generally see all plastic piping with push-fit connections - and I bet all the sharp edges are deburred in line with manufacturer's instructions before forcing them past the rubber seals that I'm sure we all agree will last longer than a well soldered copper joint

That was in response to a comment that 28 days will put many landlords into a situation of being hostage to "whoever is available at the time" regardless of cost or quality of work. By agreement with the landlord, you might choose to code something marginal (picking something topical, lack of RCD protection) as C3 and set a retest date of 6 months hence - thus giving him the time to get it done by his preferred contractor (might be you) who might not have been able to fit it in at short notice, while not permitting it to be kicked down the road for 5 years. Lets say it's a case of fitting a new CU - doing a new EICR at the same time as the EIC for the new CU is barely any extra work.
I'm not suggesting that this changes the level of danger - it's merely a pragmatic approach one might take.
As an analogy, MoT tests for cars involve a lot of "professional opinion". Any car of MoT age, even some brand new ones, will have some corrosion - it's down to the tester's opinion as to whether that is bad enough for a fail, not so bad as causing a fail, but something that needs fixing, or not significant and he might mention it to the vehicle owner without it going on the test records. I have a good rapport with my tester, and he knows that I take an interest in my vehicles - you have to when you've a 30+ year old Land Rover.
Were he testing a vehicle for an owner that treats an MoT as an alternative to proper maintenance, you know the type, the "fix anything it fails on but otherwise don't do any maintenance" - then he's probably going to be someone stricter than with someone who treats it as an opportunity to see underneath and tap the experience of the tester. Because we have a history of him pointing things out (such as "that's getting a bit scabby, but it's OK for now") and seeing a new (e.g. bulkhead outrigger) next time it comes in, he generally errs on the side of advisories rather than fails (where it's open to him) because he knows it'll get fixed. With other owners, he knows that it'll get ignored until a week or two before the next MoT and he'll err towards a fail where appropriate. On one occasion, he tapped the bulkhead outrigger (opposite side to the one already mentioned) and said something to the effect of "it's getting a bit thin, don't make a hole in it or I'll have to fail it". it was still structurally sound, just not as strong as when first made - but it got a new one, and not "just before the next MoT.
Lest you be thinking, ah, thats' something you should have been able to see for yourself - some of the issues, probably yes. But it's a lot easier spotting them with the convenience of a lift, and it's a lot easier with the benefit of many years of spotting problems that the owner of a single vehicle might never have come across. Did you know that Land Rover 90/110 models (it's not a Defender !) are prone to corrosion of a particular nut on a particular brake pipe ? No, neither did I - but sure enough it had crept in (that was a fail BTW).
The other thing is that he's in the sort of location where he gets a lot of Land Rovers of all ages. Some places will see very few (Land Rovers and/or older vehicles), and so have a tendency to pick faults with things that are normal - but not what they are used to seeing.

So, what I am suggesting is that the level of risk of any particular fault or non-compliance with the current regs depends to a certain extent on the attitude of the owner/occupier/landlord. Your job when doing an EICR is to assess the level of risk and decide whether that warrants a C1, a C2, a C3, or just a comment to the client. As you seem to have done plenty of EICRs, I'm sure you'll agree that with some occupiers you could tell them something like "X is a bit questionable, I'd recommend you don't use it until it's been sorted" and be confident that a) they'll get it sorted and b) they'll be sensible and not use it till it is. Equally, I'm sure you'll have dealt with some occupiers where you can turn something off, stick warning labels on it, tell the occupier it's really dangerous - and be sure that before you've got everything stowed back in the van it'll be turned back on and in use.
Can you tell me that there is not a single occasion when you'd code something as (say) C3 for one and C2 for the other ?

? --- for tat mate. I respect your essay ? I won’t comment no further other than I hope the younger sparks don’t feel intimidated to voice their opinion and views on here as there is a “Click” but should never be worried to voice their opinion like myself I understand there are a lot of more experienced and competent electricians as many put it but should always have a voice ? be boring with everyone agreeing with everything

 

[EricMark]

What a load of bull!

I have been looking at the posts over rented property and yes the law is silly, if I find a C1 it must be corrected before I leave the property in which case it is not a C1 any more, so why enter in on the EICR? In theory we should never have a C1, as at the time of completing report the danger should have been removed.

Be it fitting a lock or dropping tails it is so easy to recommission we do clearly want some where on the report to say what has been done, this also includes where a landlord has decommissioned some thing before we start.

But the fact remains that each edition of the wiring regulations states that where an installation complies with a previous edition in force when designed, the installation may still be safe. Be it change of cable colours or type of RCD protection or even if any RCD protection if there have been no alterations to the design, and the design complied when made, then it is still considered safe now.

This is only for the electrical report of course, fire protection or building access reports may required some changes, we have seen where shops need ramps or lifts added unless a listed building, and storing items under stairs which may cause a fire, be it card board boxes or a consumer unit likely to go on fire may well not comply with fire regulations, and may require altering, but this is down to the fire inspector to raise, not the electrical inspector.

 

[DPG]

But the fact remains that each edition of the wiring regulations states that where an installation complies with a previous edition in force when designed, the installation may still be safe. Be it change of cable colours or type of RCD protection or even if any RCD protection if there have been no alterations to the design, and the design complied when made, then it is still considered safe now.

Yes, it says it 'may still be safe'. The key word is 'may'.

 

[davesparks]

I have been looking at the posts over rented property and yes the law is silly, if I find a C1 it must be corrected before I leave the property in which case it is not a C1 any more, so why enter in on the EICR? In theory we should never have a C1, as at the time of completing report the danger should have been removed.

Where have you got this requirment to fix C1s immediately from?

The law requires landlords to have further investigation of required remedial work completed within 28 days, that's it, it doesn't place any responsibility on the person doing the report to carry out any remedial.

I've copied this from the legislation:
(4) Where a report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) indicates that a private landlord is or is potentially in breach of the duty under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and the report requires the private landlord to undertake further investigative or remedial work, the private landlord must ensure that further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person within—

(a)28 days; or

(b)the period specified in the report if less than 28 days,

You can read the whole piece of legislation here:

The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations impose duties on private landlords of residential premises in England in respect of electrical safety standards. The duties do not apply to landlords of social housing. The Regulations require local housing authorities to enforce the duties, and include a power to arrange...

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[UKPN]

Where have you got this requirment to fix C1s immediately from?

The law requires landlords to have further investigation of required remedial work completed within 28 days, that's it, it doesn't place any responsibility on the person doing the report to carry out any remedial.

I've copied this from the legislation:
(4) Where a report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) indicates that a private landlord is or is potentially in breach of the duty under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and the report requires the private landlord to undertake further investigative or remedial work, the private landlord must ensure that further investigative or remedial work is carried out by a qualified person within—

(a)28 days; or

(b)the period specified in the report if less than 28 days,

You can read the whole piece of legislation here:

The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations impose duties on private landlords of residential premises in England in respect of electrical safety standards. The duties do not apply to landlords of social housing. The Regulations require local housing authorities to enforce the duties, and include a power to arrange...

www.legislation.gov.uk

Where have you got this requirement to fix C1s from?
I love these posts, C1 being dangerous, you are going to say this must be put right within 28 days! Try not to think of C1, i know its difficult, Just look at the scenario, bare wires, fusebox hanging off, and say I cant leave this.

 

[Simon47]

There's two sub threads here.
If you're performing an EICR and find something C1 then legally there is nothing you can do to force rectification. It's not like Gas Safe where the law is on your side - you can isolate the device, or if the occupier or owner refuses, turn off the gas supply, or in extreme call in the big guys to dig up the street and disconnect the supply pipe So as a sparky with no law to back you up, all you can do is strongly advise the user/owners - and nothing you can do to stop them flicking the main switch back on before you've even got your tools packed.
Before this new law, a landlord (if so inclined) could just disregard the EICR - though in practice that sort of landlord would not even have had one done. So your scenario of bare wires and fusebox hanging off could be ignored with little risk of action against, and even less risk of consequences for, the landlord. While your extreme scenario is clear cut, with many, it would be a judgement call as whether the landlord was in breach of duties to provide a safe home - meaning that a council officer would need to know enough about electrical stuff to recognise a problem, and then it would need to be a clear enough breach to justify action.

But now, there is a law in place that requires landlords to have the EICR done, and requires the landlord fix any dangerous problems. Of course, some landlords may well ignore this law - but prosecution is then very easy, landlord failed to comply with an explicit requirement (have EICR done, or fix problems found) and the only variable left is detecting it in the first place.
So there's no need for a council officer to know anything about electrics - it comes down to yes or no answers: is there a valid EICR, if not, then action can follow; if there is one, are there any C1 or C2 items, if so and they haven't been fixed within 28 days, then action can follow. The action can be for failing to comply with these new regulations (simple yes or no questions), rather than the rather more vague "was the house safe" which involves professional opinions and except for the worst cases (like your clear cut examples) may be harder to prosecute - where "harder" means taking more resources (which are thinly spread at the best of times) for a less certain outcome in court.

And that's the difference - a landlord can no longer ignore problems relatively safe in the knowledge that absent an unsatisfactory EICR there's little the council are likely to do.
Of course, for the vast majority of us who take such matters seriously, it's another bit of red tape to get tied up with.

 

[Grant1987]

Where have you got this requirement to fix C1s from?
I love these posts, C1 being dangerous, you are going to say this must be put right within 28 days! Try not to think of C1, i know its difficult, Just look at the scenario, bare wires, fusebox hanging off, and say I cant leave this.

I agree, you can’t leave a property with anything like you’ve mentioned surely you would all rectify them there and then? If you don’t and leave them with exposed bare conductor shame on you.

 

[UKPN]

There's two sub threads here.
If you're performing an EICR and find something C1 then legally there is nothing you can do to force rectification. It's not like Gas Safe where the law is on your side - you can isolate the device, or if the occupier or owner refuses, turn off the gas supply, or in extreme call in the big guys to dig up the street and disconnect the supply pipe So as a sparky with no law to back you up, all you can do is strongly advise the user/owners - and nothing you can do to stop them flicking the main switch back on before you've even got your tools packed.
Before this new law, a landlord (if so inclined) could just disregard the EICR - though in practice that sort of landlord would not even have had one done. So your scenario of bare wires and fusebox hanging off could be ignored with little risk of action against, and even less risk of consequences for, the landlord. While your extreme scenario is clear cut, with many, it would be a judgement call as whether the landlord was in breach of duties to provide a safe home - meaning that a council officer would need to know enough about electrical stuff to recognise a problem, and then it would need to be a clear enough breach to justify action.

But now, there is a law in place that requires landlords to have the EICR done, and requires the landlord fix any dangerous problems. Of course, some landlords may well ignore this law - but prosecution is then very easy, landlord failed to comply with an explicit requirement (have EICR done, or fix problems found) and the only variable left is detecting it in the first place.
So there's no need for a council officer to know anything about electrics - it comes down to yes or no answers: is there a valid EICR, if not, then action can follow; if there is one, are there any C1 or C2 items, if so and they haven't been fixed within 28 days, then action can follow. The action can be for failing to comply with these new regulations (simple yes or no questions), rather than the rather more vague "was the house safe" which involves professional opinions and except for the worst cases (like your clear cut examples) may be harder to prosecute - where "harder" means taking more resources (which are thinly spread at the best of times) for a less certain outcome in court.

And that's the difference - a landlord can no longer ignore problems relatively safe in the knowledge that absent an unsatisfactory EICR there's little the council are likely to do.
Of course, for the vast majority of us who take such matters seriously, it's another bit of red tape to get tied up with.

Its a good post, but the writer is assuming that the "inspector" is correct. Obviously, the chaos going on with EICRs with C2s being thrown around like confetti as the main culprit, with "inspectors" who dont know the difference between Ze and Zs, the L/Lords are beginning to wise up and challenging the report. I have advised a L/Lord today, who queried a quote/EICR C2, 1980 fusebox, £2000. The scam, the Rcd requirement is becoming the usual reason for changing.

 

[Grant1987]

Its a good post, but the writer is assuming that the "inspector" is correct. Obviously, the chaos going on with EICRs with C2s being thrown around like confetti as the main culprit, with "inspectors" who dont know the difference between Ze and Zs, the L/Lords are beginning to wise up and challenging the report. I have advised a L/Lord today, who queried a quote/EICR C2, 1980 fusebox, £2000. The scam, the Rcd requirement is becoming the usual reason for changing.

That’s a ridiculous quote £2000 for changing a consumer unit? Surely you mean rewiring the property? Yes undoubtedly one of the main reasons for a consumer unit upgrade is no rcd protection on socket outlets with potential of use for outdoor equipment and in this day and age it’s the norm to have additional protection at some point these old consumer units are going to have to be upgraded sooner we get rid of them the better.

 

[Dartlec]

Its a good post, but the writer is assuming that the "inspector" is correct. Obviously, the chaos going on with EICRs with C2s being thrown around like confetti as the main culprit, with "inspectors" who dont know the difference between Ze and Zs, the L/Lords are beginning to wise up and challenging the report. I have advised a L/Lord today, who queried a quote/EICR C2, 1980 fusebox, £2000. The scam, the Rcd requirement is becoming the usual reason for changing.

At that price did it include 10 Wylex AFDDs??!!

I imagine the ones who keep putting in silly quotes like this will (hopefully) eventually find fewer landlords willing to use them - though the 28 day limit and increased demand initially at the moment will have some over a barrel.

Maybe there will end up being a market for 'second opinion' EICRs - but that will end up rather like MOTs used to be - if you knew the right person you could get one without them ever seeing the car...

I wouldn't be surprised if it ends with another 'competent persons' scheme, with online notification of an inspection and outcome...

 

[Simon47]

I agree, you can’t leave a property with anything like you’ve mentioned surely you would all rectify them there and then?

And if the owner and/occupier says no ? As I've said, if your suggestions/offers are refused then you have no legal support to go any further - realistically your options end at applying stickers, explaining the dangers, and not turning the main switch back on. I would hope that it would never be so bad as that - but it's certainly possible.
With gas it's different - under gas safety regs it's possible (in extreme) for the gas network people to dig up the street and disconnect the supply pipe. AFAIK there's no equivalent provisions for electricity.

 

[davesparks]

I agree, you can’t leave a property with anything like you’ve mentioned surely you would all rectify them there and then? If you don’t and leave them with exposed bare conductor shame on you.

No I wouldn't always rectify them there and then, I would however take reasonable steps to make them safer.
[automerge]1598690273[/automerge]

Where have you got this requirement to fix C1s from?
I love these posts, C1 being dangerous, you are going to say this must be put right within 28 days! Try not to think of C1, i know its difficult, Just look at the scenario, bare wires, fusebox hanging off, and say I cant leave this.

What is your point? However you describe it C1 items are not required to be repaired there and then.
There is an obvious need to take steps to make them safer as far as possible, but that's very different to a repair.

There isn't the time when doing an EICR to carry out proper repairs, unless it is something small and you just happen to have the right materials with you. However the simple application of some gaffer tape can make a lot of C1 items safer.

 

[EddieB]

If it was deemed safe at the time of installation as has not been modified in any way then I see no reason as to why it needs a coding. I absolutely agree with an EICR report not being used to generate a sales lead, if you are an experienced sparks you don't have to be worried if you're doing the right thing by not coding it I find it's the less experienced sparks that codes everything just in case..

 

[UKPN]

All,

I absolutely agree safety first!
Cost is not the issue
I want to understand if "not have all circuits RCD protected" is an automatic C2 rating
- Page 12 of the Best Practice Guide attached - implies to me no this is not a C2.
I am on here for guidance from experts. I am NOT an electrician. I would/ do appreciate your response and guidance.

The !8th clearly says previous editions do not demand RCDs

 

[Risteard]

The !8th clearly says previous editions do not demand RCDs

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

[EricMark]

If it was deemed safe at the time of installation as has not been modified in any way then I see no reason as to why it needs a coding. I absolutely agree with an EICR report not being used to generate a sales lead, if you are an experienced sparks you don't have to be worried if you're doing the right thing by not coding it I find it's the less experienced sparks that codes everything just in case..

I agree with that, except add if has not degraded, we can advise that RCD protection is added, without needing to code it. The same applies for any other new safety feature.

There is just one small point however, and that is new appliances which could require extra protection or modifications to the supply which are not always notified to the owner.

Two things spring to mind, one is change from TN-S to TN-C-S and the other is EV charging.

Not including solar panels as these are installed not simply plugged in, so suitable RCD protection i.e. the type of RCD used, should be selected when the solar panel is installed. My two EV chargers are class II so no problem with RCD protection or disconnection of the TN-C-S earth under fault conditions, both vehicles are e-bikes, and this is a good point, e-bikes, fork lifts, and milk floats are still electric vehicles, but they do not present the same risk as the charger is not incorporated into the vehicle.

However going back in time we had to fit an RCD to a socket outlet likely to be used for garden equipment, today the question arises what protection is required for a socket outlet likely to be used to charge an EV outside?

I have been an electrician for over 50 years, and I don't know, I look at Mode 2 EV charging and scratch my head, some leads clearly have some thing in the lead, but not sure what is in the lead, and some so called charging units have a type A or even type AC RCBO, with some saying on the installation instructions should be protected with a type B RCD which raises the question why fit a RCBO in the unit?

So be it an inverter drive washing machine, fridge, freezer, or an EV there are items today which SOME claim stop the RCD tripping, yet others claim there is no problem, so the big question is if this equipment is used, is there a potential danger?

With a TN supply the RCD is an extra, we don't rely on the RCD, so no problem, where the problem arises is with a TT supply, if the RCD is frozen due to DC then it is serious, personally I like the RCBO as it means each circuit is independent, but it also means best you can get is type A.

However for the EICR we are not selecting what is used, all we are reporting on is the condition, this is what the C stands for, it is not a safety report, although I think it should be, and it is not a report showing how it complies, again I would like to see the return of code 4, so assuming the installation complied when installed, all we are looking for is degrading and damage.

Yes I agree the EICR is very like the EIC and some clients (local council build control for example) want it completing as if it was an EIC, but question is if no earth required before 1966 then why is it required today? I am talking about where MR16 lights converted from ELV to LV and cables not changed.

If not attracting a code C2 in a 1950's house, why should it attract a code C2 in a 2020 house?

 

[Risteard]

If not attracting a code C2 in a 1950's house, why should it attract a code C2 in a 2020 house?

Our understanding of - and indeed perception of - hazards evolves over time. That said, it shouldn't be judged differently simply owing to when it was done.

 

[EricMark]

Our understanding of - and indeed perception of - hazards evolves over time. That said, it shouldn't be judged differently simply owing to when it was done.

This is also my thoughts, I feel personally if it complies with any edition of BS 7671 then not code C2, but would not go back as far as "Rules and Regulations for the Prevention of Fire Risks Arising from Electric Lighting'. Issued in 1882." only back to when 16th edition was Reprinted as BS 7671:1992.

But that does not stop code C3 or comments being left, I would still point out things like no RCD, but unless combined with removal of bathroom bonding not a C2.

There are other items which I find are a problem, for example the DNO fuse size, the old Wylex fuse box had the main switch rated at 60 amp, where marked clearly 60 amp no problem, but where not marked, I am not sure if it should not be coded as FI?

This leaves a problem as the landlord laws in England stipulate the DNO equipment is not part of the EICR but the IET model forms includes a visual inspection of the DNO equipment, which is what in my mind we should do, so you can have a problem in does it pass or not.

 

[UKPN]

What exactly do you mean by this?

I will find the page for and come back to you ASAP

 

[UKPN]

This is also my thoughts, I feel personally if it complies with any edition of BS 7671 then not code C2, but would not go back as far as "Rules and Regulations for the Prevention of Fire Risks Arising from Electric Lighting'. Issued in 1882." only back to when 16th edition was Reprinted as BS 7671:1992.

But that does not stop code C3 or comments being left, I would still point out things like no RCD, but unless combined with removal of bathroom bonding not a C2.

There are other items which I find are a problem, for example the DNO fuse size, the old Wylex fuse box had the main switch rated at 60 amp, where marked clearly 60 amp no problem, but where not marked, I am not sure if it should not be coded as FI?

This leaves a problem as the landlord laws in England stipulate the DNO equipment is not part of the EICR but the IET model forms includes a visual inspection of the DNO equipment, which is what in my mind we should do, so you can have a problem in does it pass or not.

DNO equipment is out of scope of the wiring regulations