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The smoke alarms definitely need replacing if they are 10 years out of date.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

 

[UNG]

So there is a limitation on circuit 4 of not found yet the schedule suggests it is the intruder alarm surely turning off circuit 4 would cause a mains fault on the system thereby verifying it as the intruder alarm supply

Also, why all the different IR thresholds, every IR / MFT tester has different over range limits that vary from >200 to >999 but when he has used the same tester for all of the tests how does he get >500, >999 and >1049

Not the best EICR but not as bad as some of them posted on here

 

[ssn1122]

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

Thank you for the feedback. Would battery operated smoke alarms be suitable ?

Under sink sockets and lighting passed in the previous report in 2014, so not sure if there is some new regulation since then ? He has quoted £150 to remove and install 2 waterproof sockets under sink and £120nto install 2 LED waterproof lights . Also will the IP rating be on the lights ? Where do I look for that ?

Thank you again for your time

 

[timhoward]

Also, why all the different IR thresholds, every IR / MFT tester has different over range limits that vary from >200 to >999 but when he has used the same tester for all of the tests how does he get >500, >999 and >1049

The Napit software offers you this:

It's tedious to use, every other value you have to add to the list using "Other" and some people don't bother.
As to what is wrong with a box to type the number into, I have no idea!

 

[timhoward]

He has quoted £150 to remove and install 2 waterproof sockets under sink and £120nto install 2 LED waterproof lights .

I'd nicely ask him exactly which regulation the current arrangements under the sink are violating. If you like, stick a picture up here of under the sink, then you can legitimately say you have sought a 2nd opinion.
If there's currently a leak or broken seal anywhere causing them to get regularly wet, then maybe external influences could be reasonably cited, otherwise I suspect this is one that 'looks wrong' to some people's eyes but isn't actually wrong.

Also will the IP rating be on the lights ? Where do I look for that ?

Stick a photo up if unsure.
A google for "bathroom zones" should help explain this.
Zones 0 and 1 needs spray proof lights (IP55/65). Any gaps in the fitting or around the bulb usually indicate they are not spray proof. You are looking for a design that looks enclosed.
Zone 2 needs splash proof lights (IP44 or higher). I find this harder to determine, many people just use the spray proof lights here too.
If it's a taller than 2.25m ceiling, or the fitting is outside zone 2 then there are no restrictions.

 

[UNG]

The Napit software offers you this:
View attachment 93688
It's tedious to use, every other value you have to add to the list using "Other" and some people don't bother.
As to what is wrong with a box to type the number into, I have no idea!

Thanks for heads up on that one didn't realise that it was the scheme software that makes the IR test results look a bit phoney
Can't see >1049 in that drop down list though

 

[ssn1122]

I'd nicely ask him exactly which regulation the current arrangements under the sink are violating. If you like, stick a picture up here of under the sink, then you can legitimately say you have sought a 2nd opinion.
If there's currently a leak or broken seal anywhere causing them to get regularly wet, then maybe external influences could be reasonably cited, otherwise I suspect this is one that 'looks wrong' to some people's eyes but isn't actually wrong.


Stick a photo up if unsure.
A google for "bathroom zones" should help explain this.
Zones 0 and 1 needs spray proof lights (IP55/65). Any gaps in the fitting or around the bulb usually indicate they are not spray proof. You are looking for a design that looks enclosed.
Zone 2 needs splash proof lights (IP44 or higher). I find this harder to determine, many people just use the spray proof lights here too.
If it's a taller than 2.25m ceiling, or the fitting is outside zone 2 then there are no restrictions.

Thank you ...this really helpful . I will put up a picture when I visit the property . Also The light fitting is encased but I will take a few measurements . It passed the last EICR so not sure wat has changed

 

[pc1966]

It passed the last EICR so not sure what has changed

Generally speaking many things can change:

• Regulations. While the wiring regs are not retrospective (unlike fire safety, e.g. cable collapse factors) an EICR is always done using the current regulations and guidance, with older installations judged by the risk due to practices of that time.
• Risk. While wiring regulations were always "safe enough" at the time they were in use, what is seen as acceptable risk changes with time and with modern usage patterns (as well as the occasional tradgedy focusing on some specific point).
• Ageing. You might have some cable or accessory that was fine 5 or 10 years ago, but now has got to the point where it is not longer OK.
• Environment. Changes to the use of a room, etc, can place electrical equipment in to a different risk region.
• Judgment. Many aspects of an EICR involve the judgement of the electrician looking at an installation and try to combine all of the above in to a code C1/C2/C3/none for the report. That has both a personal aspect, as well as an aspect based on what guidance they use (e.g. guidance from NECIEC has some differences from the Best Practice Guide #4)

Not a comment on your situation, just a general point that passing an inspection years ago is not automatically a pass today (rather like car MOT).

 

[ssn1122]

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

The cracked socket was not there before as my washing machine and dryer ere plugged in , however as the EICR was handled by the estate agent and we were not at the property I am not sure how to approach this but it was definitely not cracked before

 

[ssn1122]

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.

Thanks Julie , he has quoted £1000 to do all the work so wanted to ask for some advice on here .

Also can you explain what do you mean by socket within 3m of zone 1 . Should it be more than 3m away ?

 

[Deleted account]

its difficult to comment on a report without seeing the installation.

it’s easy to be an armchair online critic, however the final report is Down to the person who inspected it.

accept it or don’t. Your choice.
I’ve seen really bad reports and brilliant reports. This is not one of those bad reports. It way up there in fact. Not brilliant and I would cod slightly differently, but ask four sparkies a question on electrics you will get 4 different answers.

id advice accepting the report and get the work done.

 

[Julie.]

Thanks Julie , he has quoted £1000 to do all the work so wanted to ask for some advice on here .

Also can you explain what do you mean by socket within 3m of zone 1 . Should it be more than 3m away ?

When you have a bath or shower, the space around is defined by zones 0, 1 & 2, and there are different requirements for ingress protection (waterproofness), types of equipment etc for each zone.

There is also a regulation which prevents having a standard socket outlet within 3 metres.

However this only applies within the room itself, or if there isn't a barrier (door, window, hatch etc).

So you can have an outlet directly outside the bathroom door for example, but if you remove the door then it would be prohibited.

If the shower is contained within a proper enclosure (not just a leaky cubicle), again ok within 3 metres, (but not within zone 2), remove the shower enclosure then prohibited etc.

 

[timhoward]

Just to add that the report says:
"Low voltage (e.g. 230 volt) socket-outlets sited at least 3 m from zone 1 (701.512.3) Fan isolation switch in bathroom and on-suite. x2 in total"
The first section was auto-completed from ticking a box elsewhere. I still think it actually refers to having fan isolators in zone 2. The "socket" could be a complete red herring, due to the wrong schedule item being chosen.

 

[westward10]

Just to add that the report says:
"Low voltage (e.g. 230 volt) socket-outlets sited at least 3 m from zone 1 (701.512.3) Fan isolation switch in bathroom and on-suite. x2 in total"
The first section was auto-completed from ticking a box elsewhere. I still think it actually refers to having fan isolators in zone 2. The "socket" could be a complete red herring, due to the wrong schedule item being chosen.

I agree but if these isolators are in zone 2 it wouldn't matter if they are waterproof, whatever that is or sprinkled with fairy dust they shouldn't be in zone 2. The report however isn't clear where they are and outside of this zone they can be standard isolators.

 

[timhoward]

I agree but if these isolators are in zone 2 it wouldn't matter if they are waterproof, whatever that is or sprinkled with fairy dust they shouldn't be in zone 2. The report however isn't clear where they are and outside of this zone they can be standard isolators.

Agreed. It's definitely not an optimal write up...
btw the 'waterproof' thing was about lights and sockets under the kitchen sink - different items.

 

[westward10]

Agreed. It's definitely not an optimal write up...
btw the 'waterproof' thing was about lights and sockets under the kitchen sink - different items.

It mentions waterproof isolators in #1. The house will end up looking like a plant room

 

[timhoward]

It mentions waterproof isolators in #1. The house will end up looking like a plant room

Ah - I was looking at the report itself which is a bit (but not much!) clearer than the paraphrased version from the landlord.

 

[brianmoooore]

No zone around the bathroom basin in my version of the 18th!

 

[westward10]

No zone around the bathroom basin in my version of the 18th!

There has never been a zone surrounding the sink but a lot of pics online show one.

 

[brianmoooore]

There has never been a zone surrounding the sink but a lot of pics online show one.

I'm well aware of that, but it's the kind of thing that gives rise to spurious coding on EICRs - the subject of this thread.

 

[timhoward]

I'm well aware of that, but it's the kind of thing that gives rise to spurious coding on EICRs - the subject of this thread.

Do a google image search for "bathroom zones", and 18 of the first 20 results show one!
It takes concerted effort to find a correct diagram unfortunately.

 

[Julie.]

Do a google image search for "bathroom zones", and 18 of the first 20 results show one!
It takes concerted effort to find a correct diagram unfortunately.

Damm

I looked through a few and finally picked a poor one!!

 

[pc1966]

Do a google image search for "bathroom zones", and 18 of the first 20 results show one!
It takes concerted effort to find a correct diagram unfortunately.

The 60cm seems quite specific though, is that some general guidance for sinks instead of bathroom-specific zones?

 

[timhoward]

The 60cm seems quite specific though, is that some general guidance for sinks instead of bathroom-specific zones?

There's nothing specific in BS7671. There are a few documents that mention 30cm, e.g. NHBC technical notes, GN1, and those fine fellows upholding the standards of the industry at NICEIC...

Section 512.2 has only general comments for the external influence of Water.

 

[ImpededLoop]

The 60cm seems quite specific though, is that some general guidance for sinks instead of bathroom-specific zones?

There's no sign of it in Section 701, so I suspect it's the interpretation of whoever produced that diagram.

 

[westward10]

What happened one site produced the drawing with the zone around the sink. A second site who wanted to put a pic on their site Googled it and up came the zoned sink drawing, they copied it. Can you see where this is going.

 

[littlespark]

The regs specifically state a room “containing a bath or shower”
If it included the wash hand basin, then WCs would be included.

 

[DPG]

What happened one site produced the drawing with the zone around the sink. A second site who wanted to put a pic on their site Googled it and up came the zoned sink drawing, they copied it. Can you see where this is going.

Could you give us one more clue?

 

[ssn1122]

When you have a bath or shower, the space around is defined by zones 0, 1 & 2, and there are different requirements for ingress protection (waterproofness), types of equipment etc for each zone.

There is also a regulation which prevents having a standard socket outlet within 3 metres.

However this only applies within the room itself, or if there isn't a barrier (door, window, hatch etc).

So you can have an outlet directly outside the bathroom door for example, but if you remove the door then it would be prohibited.

If the shower is contained within a proper enclosure (not just a leaky cubicle), again ok within 3 metres, (but not within zone 2), remove the shower enclosure then prohibited etc.

View attachment 93696

Thanks Julie

 

[ssn1122]

Just to add that the report says:
"Low voltage (e.g. 230 volt) socket-outlets sited at least 3 m from zone 1 (701.512.3) Fan isolation switch in bathroom and on-suite. x2 in total"
The first section was auto-completed from ticking a box elsewhere. I still think it actually refers to having fan isolators in zone 2. The "socket" could be a complete red herring, due to the wrong schedule item being chosen.

I manage to speak to him today ( he was booked by the lettings agent so not had any contact with him before ) . He said the reason for putting the isolator switch outside and making it waterproof ( even though it was outside zone 2 ) was that if someone was drunk and stepped out of the shower or reached around the bath and switched on the switch ( this is above the door so not easy to reach from either place except if you stepped out) then it would be a safety issue whereas if you went outside the bathroom you were more likely to be dressed .

 

[ssn1122]

When you have a bath or shower, the space around is defined by zones 0, 1 & 2, and there are different requirements for ingress protection (waterproofness), types of equipment etc for each zone.

There is also a regulation which prevents having a standard socket outlet within 3 metres.

However this only applies within the room itself, or if there isn't a barrier (door, window, hatch etc).

So you can have an outlet directly outside the bathroom door for example, but if you remove the door then it would be prohibited.

If the shower is contained within a proper enclosure (not just a leaky cubicle), again ok within 3 metres, (but not within zone 2), remove the shower enclosure then prohibited etc.

View attachment 93696

he mentioned that the lights are IP20 . So if they are outside zone 2 , they should still be ok ?