EICR issue. Need advice

[Concernednewbielandlord]

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

My thoughts.

IP ratings are for protection against dust and water basically… nothing to do with fire… that’s a different regulation.
If the building has fire breaks between floors, ie concrete floors rather than then fire protected downlights aren’t needed as fire can’t spread.
It may be IP rating of downlights in a bathroom.

They haven’t ticked the boxes for operation of rcd test button.


Looks like an exercise on generating unnecessary work.

Thank you so much for your response, you're so kind. I agree with your last comment. I have sent an email requesting the specific issues and reasons for the fail as suggested by pc1966. We shall see!

 

[UNG]

I often wonder why the people producing these EICR's never proof read them before releasing them to the customer
The date of last inspection appears to be the same as this inspection
The earthing conductor is 16mm² yet the main supply conductor is 10mm²
According to the inspection schedule there is a mixed colour label on the consumer unit when the installation is 10 years old so is post the colour change

Then you get
"Electrical wiring is in unsatisfactory condition" and "Need to change all spotlights"
A little more explanation and a reason why might be a useful addition

The inspection schedule has a lot of ticks where there should be N/A's no details on the earth rod in section J but apparently it is present and good condition and then in the schedule of tests it is an N/A, I'm assuming there is no solar PV or other generation yet it is ticked

Yet another questionable EICR IMO that lacks some attention to detail on the part of the electrician carryiny out the inspection

 

[nicebutdim]

Given that they've already admitted the report contained errors, I'd be questioning precisely why they might expect payment.

 

[Dartlec]

I often wonder why the people producing these EICR's never proof read them before releasing them to the customer
The date of last inspection appears to be the same as this inspection
The earthing conductor is 16mm² yet the main supply conductor is 10mm²
According to the inspection schedule there is a mixed colour label on the consumer unit when the installation is 10 years old so is post the colour change

Then you get
"Electrical wiring is in unsatisfactory condition" and "Need to change all spotlights"
A little more explanation and a reason why might be a useful addition

The inspection schedule has a lot of ticks where there should be N/A's no details on the earth rod in section J but apparently it is present and good condition and then in the schedule of tests it is an N/A, I'm assuming there is no solar PV or other generation yet it is ticked

Yet another questionable EICR IMO that lacks some attention to detail on the part of the electrician carryiny out the inspection

Completely agree about the proof reading - I am very careful now to read mine. And I can't remember the last time I saw someone elses without at least one error, even if minor.

Some of the software doesn't help by incorrectly pre-ticking things, but that is why I always create the pdf and scan through it.

I feel that the courses covering inspection and testing could spend a LOT longer on how to complete the form, which after all is meant to be a legal document with some significant weight - and in a court of law even minor errors are going to look very bad indeed.

 

[Dartlec]

Silly errors aside, a couple of thoughts on the observations, which are what matter for the OP in terms of getting a satisfactory report.

As already mentioned, item 6.6 only applies to locations containing a bath or shower. My guess is that the downlights in there may well not be IP rated, as many new builds 10 years ago didn't seem to bother.

However, often they are (just) outside of zone 2 (2.25m height) so technically do not have a required IP rating. That may be a stupid rule, but it's what the regs state.

Interesting that they have noted the 'issue' on 6.6, not 6.7, which suggests maybe they are using their 'judgement' on suitability. However, unless they are clearly corroded, or showing signs of damage, then I'd question that.

I'd be interested in NAPIT's view on whether 'need to change all spotlights' is a suitable observation on a professional report. IMO it is anything but. The issue (if any) should be explained - how to solve it is then discussed separately.

Item 3 seems to be listed separately from any of the schedules, and has no reference to a suitable reg, so it is impossible to tell WHY they claim they all need changing.

It's also very clear that an FI was inappropriate - if they knew they needed replacing, then no Further Inspection is required!

If they are claiming replacement is essential on the basis of fire rating, then if the flat is like most modern new build flats, the ceiling is not a fire barrier - the concrete structure is designed for that purpose.

That doesn't mean that fire rated downlights might not be a bad idea. And I would bet good money that the existing downlights will be poorly installed, with lots of exposed single insulated cables, but that's not the same as saying they MUST be replaced without giving a good reason based on the regulations.

It will be interesting to see what the response to the OP is.

I don't like the idea of a report being issued with FIs and then them being decided afterwards that they should be C2s - that smacks of someone in the office looking for remedial work. I would certainly be seeking quotes from elsewhere, and requesting a corrected reissue of the report that states C2.

 

[Rockingit]

More holes in that report than my socks, and also similar to my socks I smell a rat. A new 10yr old domestic that's TN-S and a copper water service - in a flat?? I especially like the testing of an AFDD as being satisfactory given that there won't be any from ten years ago!!

I would a) not pay for it and b) ask Napit to attend and verify the findings. It's the only way to stamp out this ridiculous nonsense of rogue inspections that is sweeping the land.

 

[Dartlec]

More holes in that report than my socks, and also similar to my socks I smell a rat. A new 10yr old domestic that's TN-S and a copper water service - in a flat?? I especially like the testing of an AFDD as being satisfactory given that there won't be any from ten years ago!!

I would a) not pay for it and b) ask Napit to attend and verify the findings. It's the only way to stamp out this ridiculous nonsense of rogue inspections that is sweeping the land.

tbf I have seen a relatively new build block with what appeared to be TN-S, but that was because there was a BNO involved.

In this case, with a Ze (or Zdb) of 0.12, that's clearly not the case though.

There may be copper pipes within the block to each flat, but even if the main incomer was not plastic, the bonding should be done for the block not each flat.

Wouldn't be surprised if the house builder just stuck bonding in every flat regardless then anyway, whether needed or not, because someone thought it was needed...

I have seen flats with 2 core SWA for the feed in 10mm, and then a separate 16mm earth, so that is just possible, if unusual...

Would be interesting to see the original EIC, but I wouldn't mind betting it doesn't exist any more and was never handed over with the flat...


Still leaves plenty of holes in the report though...

Couple more for the list:

the test schedule suggests this is fed from an 80A Type B 60898 MCB - Not sure if those even exist. Many flats I've seen have an isolator in a riser cupboard, but never seen higher than 63A.

Phase sequence is apparently confirmed....for a single phase system 🤦‍♂️

The schedule says "associated RCD - N/A" - then gives test readings for it tripping - which are different from either of the actual ones on the dual RCD board.

Main switch BS 60947-3 apparently has a fuse rating of 80A (as well as a current rating) - Wylex do seem to make some interesting kit!

RCDs are apparently providing fault protection (SO many people get this one wrong on certs)

Finally, the chances of the inspector actually testing all L/N circuits at 500V and getting perfect (>200) readings unless the flat is completely empty with every appliance removed, are about as high as this country having a functioning electrical competency scheme in place any time soon!

But it's fine, because this report was done by a "Senior Electric Inspector"

 

[UNG]

It's surprising what you miss at times just looked through that EICR again and it's not valid as it recommends in section F a retest date of 9/4/2022

Beginning to think this has been done by someone with zero experience of inspection and test

 

[Concernednewbielandlord]

Hi guys, firstly I just want to thank you all so much for your help and taking time out to respond. I didn't know which way to go with this and you've helped enormously.
Thought I'd give you an update. As advised I contacted the company who had provided this electrician and asked for clarification of the issues in writing. They sent him an email marked urgent yesterday morning which I was copied in on and guess what, he hasn't responded and isn't answering his phone. I shall see what today brings!

 

[Rockingit]

It's surprising what you miss at times just looked through that EICR again and it's not valid as it recommends in section F a retest date of 9/4/2022

Beginning to think this has been done by someone with zero experience of inspection and test

You and Dartlec have both spotted what I couldn't be bothered to list (although I'd missed a few myself in a scan read), I think we can ALL agree that this is not an inspection to a suitable standard.