EICR downgraded by Landlord’s Agent from C2 to C3

[sxdave]

Before I say how I think the Agent may be trying to wriggle out of item 11 being a C2 I want to say that I think the C2 items should be addressed and corrected by the agent and that as has been said previously only doing another EICR can result in a different classification.

Obviously if the RCD does not trip at all at its rated current then it is faulty and should be replaced. Do we have any test results for the RCD?

Anyway here is what I think the agent is trying to use to wriggle out of C2 classification:
First I will assume the RCD is only for additional protection. Then referring to Regulation 643.8 "Effectiveness is deemed to have been verified...disconnects within 40mS when tested at a current equal to or higher than five times its rated residual operating current". So if the RCD disconnected within 40mS at 5x its rated current it is deemed to be effective.

 

[westward10]

Before I say how I think the Agent may be trying to wriggle out of item 11 being a C2 I want to say that I think the C2 items should be addressed and corrected by the agent and that as has been said previously only doing another EICR can result in a different classification.

Obviously if the RCD does not trip at all at its rated current then it is faulty and should be replaced. Do we have any test results for the RCD?

Anyway here is what I think the agent is trying to use to wriggle out of C2 classification:
First I will assume the RCD is only for additional protection. Then referring to Regulation 643.8 "Effectiveness is deemed to have been verified...disconnects within 40mS when tested at a current equal to or higher than five times its rated residual operating current". So if the RCD disconnected within 40mS at 5x its rated current it is deemed to be effective.

You are probably correct in that assumption but unfortunately it is a Code 2 in the Report and the agent does not have the powers to change this. It could also be a 100ma rcd and the individual misread it, does not trip at ×1 on a 30ma test but it will at ×5.

 

[timhoward]

If there's sockets capable of supplying equipment outside, or a lack of supplementary bonding in a bathroom then the lack of RCD is a definite C2 for most people. If neither of these apply then this is one where (as commented above) it met the regs when installed and is safe in as much as the wiring shouldn't catch fire. I try and advise landlords that protecting people from electric shock in fault conditions requires more than the current CU offers, and modern units have a lot more to offer if anything goes wrong.

It sounds as though the other consumer unit is more recent as it apparently has an SPD that may or may not be working. I'd be a bit surprised if it was an 100ma RCD; with an old metal CU with no RCD protection next to it it is unlikely to be TT. So item 11 really needs looking at.

Do you have the full original report? You could try telling the agent you will report them to the local authority for violating PRS legislation, enclosing the report, as there is supposed to now be a 28 day clock starting to have the remedial work done.

 

[littlespark]

Although most of us agree sockets that may feed outside equipment should have RCD protection, it would only be a C3.
if you C2 that and give it as a reason, you would need to C2 every instance of requiring RCD such as all circuits within a bathroom, all circuits feeding a luminaire etc etc.

 

[UNG]

This is where the PRS legislation fails the tenant by having no clear enforcement route

 

[timhoward]

Although most of us agree sockets that may feed outside equipment should have RCD protection, it would only be a C3.

I think BPG 4 suggests a C2 for this.
The regs have required this for nearly 15 years now, much longer than the requirement for domestic lighting circuits to have rcd protection (which bpg 4 suggests is a C3) so the two things aren’t entirely equal in one sense.

 

[littlespark]

I think BPG 4 suggests a C2 for this.
The regs have required this for nearly 15 years now, much longer than the requirement for domestic lighting circuits to have rcd protection (which bpg 4 suggests is a C3) so the two things aren’t entirely equal in one sense.

“Suggests” a C2 and that’s just a best practice guide.

An EICR is not retrospective… so it doesn’t matter if it’s 5 or 15 years old regs. (Or 50 for that matter)

C3, but I would “highly” recommend improvement.

 

[baldelectrician]

I would code item 3 a C2 as you should not be able to stick your finger in the top of a consumer unit.

 

[littlespark]

I would code item 3 a C2 as you should not be able to stick your finger in the top of a consumer unit.

Good spot…. I thought it was stuffed with caulk.

Strange that the fuse cover has been cut open, as if the fuses were at one time replaced with the push in circuit breakers… but are now back to fuses?

 

[James]

Good spot…. I thought it was stuffed with caulk.

Strange that the fuse cover has been cut open, as if the fuses were at one time replaced with the push in circuit breakers… but are now back to fuses?

Pesky circuit breakers that keep tripping
may have been changed back to fuse wire holders with copper “fuse” wire links installed?

 

[UNG]

An EICR is not retrospective… so it doesn’t matter if it’s 5 or 15 years old regs. (Or 50 for that matter)

While an EICR is not retrospective the PRS clearly uses the 18th edition as it's reference point for electrical safety, so should the EICR reflect that when deciding on what codes need to be applied or the satisfactory / unsatisfactory condition of the installation. My take on the PRS legislation was that it was intended to improve the electrical safety of properties in the rental sector and without any C2's it will not achieve it's intended aim as C3's can sit on the report forever and a day with no action needed to improve what maybe considered problem areas

From a legal point of view as with most things there will be no precedent set until someone dies and the legislation is tested by an inquest and then the finger of blame will be pointed amongst the parties involved and then no doubt other litigation will take place to decide who carries the can

From what has been posted by the OP it is difficult to take an overall view of the installation or the quality of the EICR but looking at the picture of the old Wylex board with some of the fuse base slots filled with silicone to prevent access to the live parts behind it rather than spending a few pence on proper blanks sets the acceptable level IMO very low from the letting agents side

From the OP I'm trying to understand who commissioned the EICR that the letting agent is downgrading as the way the OP reads it was the tenant that commissioned it which would then suggest there are some concerns about the safety of the installation

 

[littlespark]

I skewed off a little on a tangent from the original subject… talking about what should be C2 or C3

The matter at hand is that the agent has changed the coding on an EICR to make it satisfactory, so no urgent remedial work is required. This may or may not be with the actual landlords knowledge.

The landlord possibly has no idea, or maybe doesn’t care what happens as long as they get their rent. They will be paying the agent to manage everything.

 

[westward10]

The agent has not changed the Report they are telling the tenant the C2s aren't actually C2s and require no work. What the agent thinks is irrelevant as the tenant is in possession of the Report which quotes them and as such they need addressing.

 

[baldelectrician]

I am a tenant. We recently had an EICR done which has come back as Unsatisfactory with numerous C2 issues. However, our landlords agent has stated that they aren’t actually C2 issues so don’t require any work doing. Apparently in accordance with the Best Practice Guide 4 they believe they can downgrade them to C3. But the documentation still says they are a C2 and overall unsatisfactory.

Can they do this? All sounds a bit odd to me!

Email the agent and ask for that in witing (email is good as it is time and date stamped) to ensure an audit trail if something were wrong.
This will prove liability if something were to happen

 

[baldelectrician]

Can you put the full EICR up ( less any identifying information) please

 

[LauraCanning]

Why does the agent have to pay for remedial work/maintenance?

The agent is paid to manage and maintain the properties.

 

[nicebutdim]

The agent is paid to manage and maintain the properties.

Or to not maintain them, when they consider their opinion to be of greater relevance than that of a professional in any given field.

 

[LauraCanning]

While an EICR is not retrospective the PRS clearly uses the 18th edition as it's reference point for electrical safety, so should the EICR reflect that when deciding on what codes need to be applied or the satisfactory / unsatisfactory condition of the installation. My take on the PRS legislation was that it was intended to improve the electrical safety of properties in the rental sector and without any C2's it will not achieve it's intended aim as C3's can sit on the report forever and a day with no action needed to improve what maybe considered problem areas

From a legal point of view as with most things there will be no precedent set until someone dies and the legislation is tested by an inquest and then the finger of blame will be pointed amongst the parties involved and then no doubt other litigation will take place to decide who carries the can

From what has been posted by the OP it is difficult to take an overall view of the installation or the quality of the EICR but looking at the picture of the old Wylex board with some of the fuse base slots filled with silicone to prevent access to the live parts behind it rather than spending a few pence on proper blanks sets the acceptable level IMO very low from the letting agents side

From the OP I'm trying to understand who commissioned the EICR that the letting agent is downgrading as the way the OP reads it was the tenant that commissioned it which would then suggest there are some concerns about the safety of the installation

The agent contracted a company to do the EICR. Upon receipt their “electrical experts” have reviewed the report and disagree with many of the issues raised. Hence trying to downgrade C2s to C3

 

[brianmoooore]

has this company been informed of this?
How are they changing the certificate? Striking out what they don't like and writing in their version or producing a new certificate?
Who's signature is on the revised document, and are they aware of it?

 

[westward10]

It doesn't really matter what other parties think you have a Report with Code 2 issues and they need addressing.