failed EICR, please can you advice

[ssn1122]

Hi .
I have a EICR that has failed . Can anyone please advice if some of the suggestions on there are legal requirements or not as there was an EICR on the property in 2014 and there was no problem with some of the things recommended in this report. For example :
1. -Remove & install new LED waterproof light in bathroom & en-suite ( the lights are still the same as when the 2014 report was done , so not sure why they need changing now) .
2. -Rewire conductors in waterproof containment. Remove & install 2 single waterproof sockets
under kitchen sink ( again this was not a requirement when the 2014 report was done )
3."RCD module is no longer available (obselate) to replace.
-Remove & install new 17 way metal clad split load RCD protected consumer unit ( do i have to change this even it is working )
4.Remove & install 2 new optical smoke detectors
5 Remove & install new waterproof fan isolation switch in bathroom & en-suite ( again is this a legal requirement for a rental property )

Thank you in advance for any advice

 

[nicebutdim]

Can you post images of the full report, with any personal and company information redacted?

 

[ssn1122]

Can you post images of the full report, with any personal and company information redacted?

Hi please see attached

 

[ImpededLoop]

It's impossible to give a definitive answer without seeing the installation. Most of the findings are fair, some may be slightly harsh.

Best advice would be to get another electrician to price for the remedial work & to recertificate it when complete. They should be able to give you an honest appraisal of what's required.

The smoke alarms definitely need replacing if they are 10 years out of date.

 

[westward10]

I cannot open that pdf.

 

[nicebutdim]

 

[nicebutdim]

 

[ImpededLoop]

I cannot open that pdf.

I had to download it and try a couple of pdf readers to get it to open on Android.

Edit... Looks like nicebutdim has made them visible now.

 

[nicebutdim]

I had to download it and try a couple of pdf readers to get it to open on Android.

Edit... Looks like nicebutdim has made them visible now.

Just posted images from the PDF, but can't make them enlargeable.




Smoke detectors outside remit of this report, but they'll need to be replaced as it's a rental property.

Under sink sockets issue seems unusual as does the requirement of waterproof containment for their wiring. Are they wired in surface trunking from above worktop level? Regardless, this won't contribute significantly to cost of remedial work and there may be reasons for this that aren't immediately apparent from the report alone.

'Waterproof' is a poor choice of term but, depending on placement of bathroom and ensuite lights, it may well be that they don't meet required IP rating and need to be replaced. Again impossible to comment on, but not a major cost.

Fan isolation switch replacement may be a bit strict, but again can not comment without more information and no significant cost would be involved in their replacement

Single RCD only protecting circuits 8-14 and not meeting required disconnection times is a definite issue and new consumer unit is likely to be the best way of resolving this if the existing RCD is obsolete and also overcoming the lack of supplementary bonding in bathrooms. While this is likely to be the main cost of remedial work, I'd probably prefer to look at a slightly more expensive all RCBO replacement for a number of reasons.

Just one person's opinion, but it seems to be a fairly comprehensive report that has highlighted a couple of potentially very serious issues

 

[westward10]

Totally agree with the use of "waterproof" as in reality this cannot be achieved but I only see one C2 issue the failure of the rcd.

 

[timhoward]

It doesn't seem a bad report, there are a couple of strange things but if the shower isn't earthed as item 6 and schedule section 5.8 implies, there's no supplementary bonding, and there's no working RCD protection then there's no doubt in my mind the installation is not satisfactory and I agree with the overall finding.

The C2's I (probably) agree with:
6 - Missing earth conductor at shower DP isolation switch - this implies shower is not earthed, backed up by schedule item 5.8
14 - RCD not working, definite C2, as it's being relied on instead of supplementary bonding, as @nicebutdim mentioned.

A photo of the consumer unit would help advise on the need for it's replacement, and also item 3. If it is obsolete and parts aren't available for it then it may unfortunately be that replacing it is the only way to get the vital RCD protection working again.
I also agree that if the CU is being changed then an RCBO unit is a better (more expensive) choice than a dual -RCD board.

 

[Julie.]

I take a completely different view on this report, as to me it raises a number of concerns re. the person doing the report.

Firstly it indicates that rcd is required for fault protection - why? All zs appear to be within limits.

But then again it uses the hot (reg) limits for max zs, and cold measured zs

It states waterproof (ip x7) required in bathroom etc - not required by the regs unless it genuinely is within zone 0 , other than that ip x4 is required, which is normal fittings.

These are serious misunderstandings of the regulations and testing and inspection in general, can we therefore believe the other observations - for example socket within 3m of zone 1 - is the bathroom that big? If the socket is outside of the room 701.32.1 applies.

Also waterproof required under sink (sensible but no regulation demanding it)

As for the rcd fail, perhaps this is right, but I am somewhat doubtful that the testing was completed correctly based on the misunderstandings above, did he/she test on the correct setting?

OK, there are a number of potentially valid observations, cracked sockets etc, cpc missing in switch etc.

And it does look like there is an incorrect mcb fitted.

However, I would be concerned with the workscope suggested, I would engage a different electrician to replace the valid sockets, tighten up the loose ones etc and investigate the validity of the suspicious observations, which may result in a new board.

 

[westward10]

I didn't see the cracked sockets comment but it doesn't seem so blurry this morning

 

[timhoward]

To me there's a couple of potential benefit-of-doubt things...

I'm intrigued by the missing cpc at shower isolator, as there's a R1+R2 and Zs recorded for the shower. I'm wondering if the shower has a separate cpc and there's no continuity of CPC or it's chopped off between CU and the isolator. That could lead to the person deciding that RCD for fault protection was required. Pure speculation of course on my part.

Regarding zones, I think they might be trying to say that there are fan isolator switches in zone 2 in both bathroom and en-suite. With that software the first part is always copied from the schedule of inspection and mistakenly choosing the wrong section can very easily confuse the observation. The 2nd part of the line is usually more pertinent and this mentions the two fan isolators.
In this case it should have gone under 6.7 not 6.5 and then it would have made more sense. As it is, while the right reg is cited the wrong part of it is quoted. But it might explain it.

The person doing it has conducted nearly 1500 EICRs and I'd really hope that they know how to test an RCD. I'd imagine they would check the tester settings if a high reading is obtained. If it's an obsolete board as suggested it seems plausible that it's an older RCD with a greater chance of failing.

I completely agree the under kitchen sink waterproof stuff is rather baffling though!

 

[bigspark17]

Shocking codings imo.. looks like there just there writing a sales list more than an eicr.. get another company in to test, dont pay the other.

 

[brianmoooore]

Definitely genuine C2s amongst it, but some are "not how I would have done it", rather than actual breaches of the regs.
Unearthed electric shower with no RCD protection is getting close to C1 territory for me.

 

[pc1966]

But then again it uses the hot (reg) limits for max zs, and cold measured zs

I see that with the Electroform software, you stick in the rating (6A & B curve for example) and it defaults to the value for 0.95*Uo but not allowing for the 0.8 heating factor for 70C

Though there seems to be a "100%" at the top of colum here which presumably allows the person to dial in 80% ?

 

[LukeD]

Shocking codings imo.. looks like there just there writing a sales list more than an eicr.. get another company in to test, dont pay the other.

why not pay for the test ?

 

[Intoelectrics]

I completely agree the under kitchen sink waterproof stuff is rather baffling though!

Yeah, the term "waterproof" is an unusual phrase to use. Also why would you need a higher IP rating for a socket inside a cupboard? Its not likely to get wet unless a pipe burst or the sink leaked really bad. Certainly unrequired, unless of course you want to really go the extra mile for protection against damage in the event of a major leak.

 

[timhoward]

Though there seems to be a "100%" at the top of colum here which presumably allows the person to dial in 80% ?

Yes, on that software the default is 80%, so a conscious decision has been taken to change it.

Yeah, the term "waterproof" is an unusual phrase to use. Also why would you need a higher IP rating for a socket inside a cupboard? Its not likely to get wet unless a pipe burst or the sink leaked really bad.

The danger of being an electrician working largely in isolation with little ongoing refreshment of the actual rules is that over the years personal preferences turn into self-imagined regulations. e.g. "Must have pull cord switch in bathroom". "Sockets must be on same phase in same room". "Fire rated downlights are always required if there's a bedroom above". "If you 'export' TNCS to a shed you always need an earth rod"....etc.
It's easy to do and I've been guilty of most of these in my time. Maybe the under the sink stuff is in the same vein.