EICR - Unsatisfactory - No RCD - C2

[westward10]

I was about to argue with you about this: Unsatisfactory = C1 or C2 identified, therefore no C1 or C2 must = satisfactory.

Until I noticed no mention of FI's in the note, which will = an unsatisfactory report. IET should re-write that note really, so as we're all on the same page (customers included).

Even without 1, 2 and FI there is nothing to say it must be satisfactory.

 

[loz2754]

Even without 1, 2 and FI there is nothing to say it must be satisfactory.

Westward10 - I'm not sure I'm following your thinking here.

Perhaps you would care to share an example of something you would consider that is not immediately dangerous or potentially dangerous, but would result in a report being unsatisfactory?

Being that the purpose of an EICR is to show whether the installation is safe for continued use, meaning that there is nothing dangerous or potentially dangerous.

 

[westward10]

Westward10 - I'm not sure I'm following your thinking here.

Perhaps you would care to share an example of something you would consider that is not immediately dangerous or potentially dangerous, but would result in a report being unsatisfactory?

Being that the purpose of an EICR is to show whether the installation is safe for continued use, meaning that there is nothing dangerous or potentially dangerous.

Simple really, the suggested report format in BS7671 does not state a report should be satisfactory if only Code 3 issues are present.

 

[loz2754]

Simple really, the suggested report format in BS7671 does not state a report should be satisfactory if only Code 3 issues are present.

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question.
It's not important anyway, just being curious.

 

[davesparks]

Perhaps you would care to share an example of something you would consider that is not immediately dangerous or potentially dangerous, but would result in a report being unsatisfactory?

If there are no C1 or C2 items but multiple pages of C3 items you might consider whether or not it has got to the point of being unsatisfactory.

 

[loz2754]

If there are no C1 or C2 items but multiple pages of C3 items you might consider whether or not it has got to the point of being unsatisfactory.

I can see what you and westward10 are getting at, and, as it's left up to the one doing the inspection and testing to decide how to classify the installation, no-one can really contest it. I suppose you would write in the comments the reason(s) for the "Unsatisfactory" declaration?

 

[westward10]

I can see what you and westward10 are getting at, and, as it's left up to the one doing the inspection and testing to decide how to classify the installation, no-one can really contest it. I suppose you would write in the comments the reason(s) for the "Unsatisfactory" declaration?

I would list all the Code 3 observations there is no need to separately say why it is unsatisfactory. I see why people read it the way it is but as I say it does not state it should be satisfactory if there are no Codes 1, 2 or FI.

 

[timhoward]

I would list all the Code 3 observations there is no need to separately say why it is unsatisfactory. I see why people read it the way it is but as I say it does not state it should be satisfactory if there are no Codes 1, 2 or FI.

I know exactly what you are getting at.
There have been times where "safe for continued use" has felt like a lower bar than "satisfactory" even though one is supposed to imply the other.
I recently gave a 2nd opinion on a house with entirely 60's wiring, no CPC on lighting circuit, and no earth sleeving on any socket or light switch. Worst IR was about 5M. Also nowhere near enough sockets, leading to lots of extension leads. It had a a recent Hager board with upfront type A RCD. According to BPG4 all of the the above are C3's or no-code at worst. In once sense that was correct - no one was going to die today or tomorrow, it was safe enough for continued use "for now". It would have felt a stretch saying it was "Satisfactory" though, simply according to the common understanding of the word.

For the record, I've noticed that BPG4 does say precisely that it should be satisfactory if there are no C1,C2 or FI codes. I know that isn't an authoritative document. It's a document I generally appreciate though when dealing with domestic customers.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I personally think we are intended to give a satisfactory result where there is an absence of C1's, C2's and FI's. I can't find anything in the regs, forms, guidance etc that backs up the idea that we can give an unsatisfactory result where only C3's are present.

If an unsatisfactory report has only C3's, what remedial work should be done to bring it back to satisfactory?

From the OSG:

Where an unsatisfactory result has been recorded, C1 and/or C2 observations will have been included identifying the reason(s) for the result. Fl (Further Investigation) may also be recorded where the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 observation.

 

[westward10]

I personally think we are intended to give a satisfactory result where there is an absence of C1's, C2's and FI's. I can't find anything in the regs, forms, guidance etc that backs up the idea that we can give an unsatisfactory result where only C3's are present.

If an unsatisfactory report has only C3's, what remedial work should be done to bring it back to satisfactory?

From the OSG:

Where an unsatisfactory result has been recorded, C1 and/or C2 observations will have been included identifying the reason(s) for the result. Fl (Further Investigation) may also be recorded where the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 observation.

None of these are Regulations though BS7671 is scant on advice for periodics and the Appendix where the report format is contained is informative.

 

[Surgite]

Hi everyone, a bit more info based on the discussions.

The flat is on the ground floor, it has a small balcony but no outdoor sockets.

Someone asked for a photo of the board. This is the only one I have right now, I'll take a better photo with the board open.



The seller of the property didn't provide an EICR or "electrical test certificate" as the solicitors called it. The flat was being let by the previous owner so I suspect it either was compliant at some point and/or they never bothered.

When getting quotes for the remedial works, should I just enquire about a new consumer unit? Does that cover the RCD protection?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

None of these are Regulations though BS7671 is scant on advice for periodics and the Appendix where the report format is contained is informative.

Agreed, there's very little to the chapter. It does say in 653.1 that "
an Electrical Installation Condition Report based on the model given in Appendix 6 shall be produced", but the words 'based on' are a bit vague to me, not really offering any minimum expectations.

 

[Surgite]

I received a quote from the same electrician for the remedial works. It's £812.50 for "CMU (double stack) replacement" and includes a retest and EICR satisfactory certificate.



I'm not sure what CMU means, some type of consumer unit? Didn't find results online and the marketplace doesn't allow direct contact between the parties. As I'm new to this and have no point of reference, does this quote seem reasonable for the works?

 

[Aaron b]

It's the inspectors opinion and judgement on whether it's potentially dangerous, whilst there's guides they can't cover all scenarios. I don't see why you wouldn't bump a c3 upto a c2 if your opinion was that it needed correcting.

 

[davesparks]

I received a quote from the same electrician for the remedial works. It's £812.50 for "CMU (double stack) replacement" and includes a retest and EICR satisfactory certificate.

View attachment 100490

I'm not sure what CMU means, some type of consumer unit? Didn't find results online and the marketplace doesn't allow direct contact between the parties. As I'm new to this and have no point of reference, does this quote seem reasonable for the works?

CMU? I've no idea, the item that will be replaced is a consumer unit (CU)

What do you mean by the marketplace?

It's impossible to say if that's a reasonable quote or not, the best thing to do is get a couple of quotes from other electricians and see how they compare.

 

[littlespark]

I received a quote from the same electrician for the remedial works. It's £812.50 for "CMU (double stack) replacement" and includes a retest and EICR satisfactory certificate.

View attachment 100490

I'm not sure what CMU means, some type of consumer unit? Didn't find results online and the marketplace doesn't allow direct contact between the parties. As I'm new to this and have no point of reference, does this quote seem reasonable for the works?

I’m not sure what CMU means either “consumer main unit”?? I dunno.

I’d be a bit concerned about the meter tails resting on the metal trunking like that. (#31, for those not paying attention )

 

[timhoward]

@Surgite is this property in London (as per your profile) or elsewhere? I'm just wondering if any forum members are nearby. It will also help assess the pricing as it does vary by region.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Gosh, I can't remember the last time I disagreed with both westward and davesparks. I automatically feel I must be missing something, but I'm really not sure in this case.

I just can't see how an installation can be unsatisfactory if there is absolutely nothing dangerous, nothing whatsoever even potentially dangerous and absolutely nothing that needs looking into further because there's zero chance of it being dangerous. But it's still unsatisfactory.

With your argument of it not stating it in the regs, you could then still say it's unsatisfactory even if there were no codes at all.

Have you ever given an unsatisfactory like this? If so, could you explain how? Genuinely interested,

 

[davesparks]

Have you ever given an unsatisfactory like this? If so, could you explain how? Genuinely interested,

No but I've had one where I debated it for quite some time and had a long chat about it with the guy who taught me.

5 year old stage lighting installation, probably around 100 circuits out of nearly 300 with unexpected IR readings ranging from 10 to 100 ish megohms, all stable readings no fluctuation.

So the readings comply, but they just don't make sense.

As its a stage lighting installation all of the circuits are terminated in sockets, no permanently installed equipment, neons etc to be messing with the test. The theatre was dark at the time (a theatre that is dark is one that has no show, so no set, lighting rig, completely empty stage)

The circuits in question are all in groups of six, and six is a magic number in this kind of installation. We use a lot of socapex connectors which are a 19 pin plug/socket system used to connect 6 circuits at a time. So I popped a panel open and disconnected one of these sockets and sure enough the low readings disappeared from the circuit.

Obviously not a C1 or C2, and no further investigation really necessary, so that leaves a possible C3 (also debatable) and the question of whether or not this is satisfactory.

 

[nicebutdim]

I’d be a bit concerned about the meter tails resting on the metal trunking like that. (#31, for those not paying attention )

I can't enlarge the image on this device, but there's something raised from the trunking at the cable entry. Possibly a dust covered bush or grommet.