EICR Test Fail, before and after

[HappySlappy]

Hi, recently had an EICR test done by 'Landlord Certificates' which failed due to circuite 3 having two radial circuits into a single 32amp MCB, they advised splitting it into two 20amp MCB's and quoted £174 including EICR certificate. The Electrian appears to have simply taken out the 32amp MCB's and put in a 20amp and 16amp. Was the original actually a fail? And is what the Electrician has done now acceptable?

 

[Dustydazzler]

I imagine the 32a 'radial' (2 cables in the MCB) actually used to be a Ring and has now been infected / broken and lost its Ring continuity.
The correct cause of action would be first to try and correct the break and reinstate the original Ring.
If that is not possible then both cables could be put into one 20amp MCB,

If they are in fact 2 completely separate radials ( with no cross connections ) then they can be put on 2 separate MCBs , 16 amp or 20amp is fine

 

[James]

do you have any previous reports for the electrical installation?

 

[HappySlappy]

do you have any previous reports for the electrical installation?

It's my first EICR since the consumer unit was changed about 8 years ago, I have a building regs cert of compliance for that.

 

[James]

the installation cert for the consumer unit change would be a really useful thing to dig out and post here.
in particular the page marked "schedule of circuits"

 

[HappySlappy]

the installation cert for the consumer unit change would be a really useful thing to dig out and post here.
in particular the page marked "schedule of circuits"

It's just a single page cert from NICEIC, no schedule was ever issued to me.

 

[HappySlappy]

I imagine the 32a 'radial' (2 cables in the MCB) actually used to be a Ring and has now been infected / broken and lost its Ring continuity.
The correct cause of action would be first to try and correct the break and reinstate the original Ring.
If that is not possible then both cables could be put into one 20amp MCB,

If they are in fact 2 completely separate radials ( with no cross connections ) then they can be put on 2 separate MCBs , 16 amp or 20amp is fine

Thanks, it is an old building, probably had loads of messing around with the electrics over the years, so makes sense a ring may have become broken, I wonder why the guy who fitted the fuse box couldn't have come to the same conclusion as the EICR tester.

 

[Dustydazzler]

Thanks, it is an old building, probably had loads of messing around with the electrics over the years, so makes sense a ring may have become broken, I wonder why the guy who fitted the fuse box couldn't have come to the same conclusion as the EICR tester.

The sparks who changed the board might not have done end to end tests on the ring and just assumed it is a ring.
Without the original install cert with test results we will never know what was tested.
I am guess the guy doing the EICR has done end to end and can't get continuity of Ring

 

[westward10]

I take it they didn't comment on some awful connections in the consumer unit, one of which is at the new mcb and the missing busbar shield.

 

[HappySlappy]

I take it they didn't comment on some awful connections in the consumer unit and the missing busbar shield.

They did, I had a new boiler installed recently and the guy who wired in the thermostat also commented on how intidy it is, bit dissapointing given what it cost but what can I do? Some people have no pride in their work, but it is safe I assume, especially with the EICR just done.

 

[Dustydazzler]

For me the consumer unit is a good indicator on the sort of sparks you are.
Wires which are nice and neatly trimmed and dressed shows a certain level of care and attention, sadly lacking in 99% of domestic work I see these days

 

[westward10]

When I do an EICR I reconnect and tidy as necessary that is the difference between someone who is skilled and someone who doesn't care, the least they should have done is note it in the Report.

 

[oscar21]

That install is terrible, I'm no flamboyant artist when it comes to fitting them, usually because I always seem to find myself hunched double under the stairs or something but that is woeful. the worst bit is the incoming tails, looks like a 3 core SWA, the main earth is the solid yellow cable yet it seems to enter through a different un-grometed hole in the rear of the unit to the red and blue, where exactly does the single insulation begin and end on those cables, as we know it doesn't take much to nick the inner cores of SWA.

 

[brianmoooore]

My main concern with this would be, if these were originally RFCs that now do not have ring continuity, has the 'faulty' section been completely isolated from what has now become the far ends of radial circuits, or are there unterminated live exposed ends somewhere in the property?
It's often fine to split a RFC into two radials from the same fuse or MCB, but investigation is necessary to determine exactly what you're dealing with, and that the now missing section of the RFC is properly disconnected or terminated.

 

[HappySlappy]

Just to follow up on this, circuit three was indeed a ring that lost it's continuity, the work quoted for was to split this into two 20amp circuits with separate MCB's, instead they just replaced the MCB for a 20amp MCB, is this OK?

It actually looks like they have also downgraded circuit four to a 16amp MCB, this is presumably a ring that actually does have continuity, the guy who did the work did no testing after so this is obviously speculation, but could this potentially be unsafe?

 

[mainline]

Downsizing a breaker isn't going to make it unsafe, unless that circuit is needed for critical safety reasons.

Personally, I would have made an effort to repair what looks like 2 RFCs at the least.

They also could have made the effort of splitting the lights and RFCs between the RCDs.

 

[sxdave]

Sorry - did not see the latest posts today - much of below has already been commented on...
Perhaps I am missing something but I am puzzled as to why the MCB on circuit 4 has changed.
Looking at the 'before' photograph both MCB3 (32A) and MCB4 (32A) have two red line wires, suggesting (but not confirming) the existence of two ring circuits.
The original post makes no mention of a change to circuit4/MCB4 but this has changed to a 16A MCB in the 'after' photo but seems to indicate that a single 32A MCB is to be replaced by two off, 20A MCBs.
I wonder if one of these circuits (circuit4?) is still a ring which may now be susceptible to tripping as the MCB is only 16A. Obviously depends on the load on the circuit.

 

[mainline]

Downsizing a breaker isn't going to make it unsafe, unless that circuit is needed for critical safety reasons.

Sorry - did not see the latest posts today - much of below has already been commented on...
Perhaps I am missing something but I am puzzled as to why the MCB on circuit 4 has changed.
Looking at the 'before' photograph both MCB3 (32A) and MCB4 (32A) have two red line wires, suggesting (but not confirming) the existence of two ring circuits.
The original post makes no mention of a change to circuit4/MCB4 but this has changed to a 16A MCB in the 'after' photo but seems to indicate that a single 32A MCB is to be replaced by two off, 20A MCBs.
I wonder if one of these circuits (circuit4?) is still a ring which may now be susceptible to tripping as the MCB is only 16A. Obviously depends on the load on the circuit.

Without actually testing to see if it’s a ring or some radials feeding an immersion or something it’s hard to say but changing it for a 20 I can’t see doing any harm

Is there no labelling on the cu ?

 

[hasel5]

Could also be that the cables for the the 2 rings are in wrong The mcbs
As one leg from one ring in with other ring and same on other MCB

 

[brianmoooore]

Just to follow up on this, circuit three was indeed a ring that lost it's continuity, the work quoted for was to split this into two 20amp circuits with separate MCB's, instead they just replaced the MCB for a 20amp MCB, is this OK?

It actually looks like they have also downgraded circuit four to a 16amp MCB, this is presumably a ring that actually does have continuity, the guy who did the work did no testing after so this is obviously speculation, but could this potentially be unsafe?

It is extremely potentially unsafe if downrating the MCB on the incomplete ring is all they did, without ensuring that the faulty section of the ring is completely disconnected at each end.
Whether a single 20A MCB for both sections, and a 16A for the other is satisfactory depends on the calculated or estimated load for those circuits. If it is reasonably expected that the load on those circuits would exceed 20A or 16A respectively for more than a few minutes, then it is not satisfactory.