Failed EICR Query

[danieluk84]

Hello all, hoping for a little advice from you kind people

My friend has been told to change consumer unit by the people who did the EICR, at a cost of £600, which i think sounds excessive. It seems to only need a new RCBO and blanking plate(s) fitted? I guess a photo of the existing unit might be beneficial.

What are your thoughts? Also, is the C2 for the failed RCBO?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mikegh]

Looks like there's more than 1 RCD needed and other issues with the CU

600 seems excessive just for a CU change although there will be additional testing required afterwards

 

[cliffed]

What’s the DB @ the moment…also if it’s installed @ an earlier edition then no Rcd protection would be a C3…definitely a C2 for missing blank which would be an easy fix.

 

[bill01803]

c1 for missing blank - access to live parts

 

[telectrix]

item 1 should be C2. item 4 a C3.

 

[telectrix]

i class the missing blank as a C2 as there's no immediate danger. potential as in one has to insert one's fingerand then manage to touch a live part. with modern MCBs that's very unlikely as the live terminals are recessed in the housing.

i would have fitted a blank rather than take twice as long to put the comment on the report.

 

[littlespark]

C1 for missing blank if there’s exposed live busbar
same situation as bare live cables exposed… just as dangerous.

a C2 is something like an earth not connected. Everything works fine until a second fault causes exposed metal to go live…no ADS… then becomes a C1

 

[richy3333]

Missing blank is a C1 any day of the week.
Item 4 is a C3

£600 for a board change is not unreasonable but may be unnecessary in this instance, but who knows as we cant see the whole report?

 

[telectrix]

Missing blank is a C1 any day of the week.
Item 4 is a C3

£600 for a board change is not unreasonable but may be unnecessary in this instance, but who knows as we cant see the whole report?

so how would you code a similar size hole in the top of the CU, compromising the IP4X? a finger could still getin but unless said finger is 7" (ooh, matron), can't actually reach a live part.C2 in my book.

 

[richy3333]

C1 or C2 depending on my engineering judgement, but a missing blank giving rise to immediate access to live parts is a C1 IMHO.

Other than that I cant comment upon your theoretical scenario and it would be futile to do so ?

 

[telectrix]

as i said in a previous post, i'd just bung a blank in, maybe with a spot of superglue. far less trouble and time than coding it.

 

[brianmoooore]

as i said in a previous post, i'd just bung a blank in, maybe with a spot of superglue. far less trouble and time than coding it.

So would I, but in theory, at least, the missing blank should attract a C1, since you are testing and reporting on the installation as is.
A similar thing can occur when you submit your car for an MOT test. Any reasonable tester will stick a litre or two of water into the washer bottle if it's empty, or replace a failed compulsory lamp (assuming easy access), if these are the only things it will fail on, but they're not supposed to.

 

[telectrix]

my method has always been that if it's broke, fix it. hate the current fad for if it's broke write it on paper for some suit to ignore the problem.

 

[timhoward]

A photo of the unit and more of the report would be handy. Whether it's fixable rather than requiring replaceable depends on the brand and age of the consumer unit.
I note in the summary there's an RCBO failing it's test which I'm assuming is coded on a continuation sheet.

The C2 appears to relate to lighting; the sparks was a NAPIT member and the tester is at liberty to follow their codebreakers book rather than the industry standard best practise guide 4 which would have it as a C3.

(Just noticed - academic interest only - ever so slightly high Ze for a TNCS on that report.)

 

[danieluk84]

Thank you guys

Its both helpful and interesting reading all your comments, and i am grateful. I should have posted more of the EICR, I've attached it below.

If it were my home id troubleshoot it myself, unfortunately i don't have access to the house. Hopefully i can get hold of a photo of the unit.
The price for a change of consumer unit i didn't have issue with, I'm just querying whether or not it is strictly necessary, or are they are creating work where it may not be needed. It seems to be the norm these days, across many professions.
I know ideally, all circuits should be protected, and if that involves changing the unit, then it should be recommended to the customer, but that's not how it was communicated to her.
However, maybe there is something in this report that indicates that actually it is necessary in this case and that's why I posted here to read the various opinions of experienced people so that she could make an informed decision. Access to the advice of professionals here in invaluable in situations like this.

Here's the rest of the report including the original jpeg from the original post.

Once again thank you.

 

[timhoward]

I wouldn't say it's a bad report and it's generally a lot better than some we see on here. The issues have been found, it's a matter of the severity of them really.

Strictly speaking, to satisfy the findings, the first one is easy, as said above fit a blank.
The C2 - Cable's wouldn't be allowed to be directly buried in walls < 50mm deep without RCD protection today. How to code it in older installs is one of the things that is interpreted differently by different people. The industry best practise guide says it's a C3. A guide produced by the scheme the electrician belongs to says it's a C2. To fix that would involve adding RCD protection to all circuits. And here the fun starts.

I'd say the consumer unit is quite an old one as the breaker sizes are B5 and B30, not B6 and B32 which have been common for a long time. It's interesting there was an (early?) RCBO available for it at all, someone might be able to identify it from that alone. ( @westward10 ?)

I can't imagine being able to easily upgrade that board and add RCD protection as the parts probably won't be sitting on shelves (new), and it will become an eBay scouring job. The same applies to the failed RCBO.
So the consumer unit's age might dictate it's replacement anyway due to lack of parts.

Personally I probably wouldn't have given a C2 for the buried cables, but would have been advising replacement anyway. If thought there was a socket that could potential supply equipment outdoors I might have added a C2 for lack of working RCD protection and we arrive back at the same place.

(I'd also be suggesting a return visit in 6-12 months to measure the external earth loop impendence again as it's right on the limit for the earthing type. (0.37 ohms, limit is 0.35 ohms). If it stays static, fair enough. If it has worsened the supplier need contacting as it's their problem.)

 

[westward10]

I know Memshield 1 and Wylex QEB produced 60898 5A devices but what throws that theory is the single pole rcbo which would not have been available. If it were a Wylex standard board which it almost certainly isn't then it is possible as GE produced plug in 60898 5A, 15A and 30A devices. A picture would be ideal.

 

[danieluk84]

Thanks again.

So the NAPIT scheme explains the C2 and the consumer unit is likely very old and difficult to get parts for. A photo really would bloody help

Can anyone confirm that a "retest" is not needed should a different electrician to the one the did the EICR is used to complete the remedial work. All that is needed is proof the problems were rectified?

 

[timhoward]

Can anyone confirm that a "retest" is not needed should a different electrician to the one the did the EICR is used to complete the remedial work. All that is needed is proof the problems were rectified

Correct. Though a CU change (seemingly only viable solution) should result in an EIC certificate and the work being notified to building control.

 

[cliffed]

c1 for missing blank - access to live parts

Agree my mistake there?

 

[danieluk84]

Thank you all. Youve been a great help!

 

[danieluk84]

Me again, quick question.

The failed RCD test for the RCBO mentioned in section E and test results.
I cant see it mentioned in section K or outcomes? Is this normal?

Thank you

 

[Deleted account]

Get the board changed. The advice is sound and £600 is alot less than I would charge.

 

[MJPD29]

It's hard to tell without seeing the installation but it seems reasonable at £600. The report is much better than some I have seen.

 

[telectrix]

i jst quoted for a 22 way RCBO board, 18 RCBOs fitted. am I in the right ballpark at £900? (existing board is dual RCD 14 way with 17 circuits, grossly overloaded with 2 RFCs in a 32A (twice) and 2 6mm cooker circuits in a 32A. ). and trying to trace the conductors back to their respective cables is impossible. can't even see where the enter the CU. blue/brown spaghetti

 

[Electrics]

i jst quoted for a 22 way RCBO board, 18 RCBOs fitted. am I in the right ballpark at £900? (existing board is dual RCD 14 way with 17 circuits, grossly overloaded with 2 RFCs in a 32A (twice) and 2 6mm cooker circuits in a 32A. ). and trying to trace the conductors back to their respective cables is impossible. can't even see where the enter the CU. blue/brown spaghetti

How much for materials? Imo a board change should be expensive, i think most sparks charge too little - where some have a go heros will attempt sockets or lighting, fewer will try and tackle a board change and as such i think you should cash in on it just exactly the same as gas engineers do with boilers. They charge loads (my mate prices £1800 a day in Essex installing boilers for a basic swap out supply and fit) because they know people can't/won't tackle it themselves due to the danger factor.

Where people complain about 'high' prices for other stuff they think looks simple, imo things like board changes should make up the difference for sparks.

I think making £400-600 net for a board change is really reasonable. If people don't like it they should go get the qualifications and the equipment and do it themselves! Think they might baulk when they see just the tester can throw you for a grand, before any training or CPD is taken into account.

 

[Dartlec]

As already stated, this is a pretty good report, though as always there are a few oddities - but mostly of pedantic interest.

1. If agreed limitations include all "cables in the walls", then how does he know that there are any cables <50mm deep? I agree it's likely, but even the NAPIT guy when asked on a podcast about their approach took the view that usually limitations overrode the 'need' to give a C2 for such cables.

2. Something odd going on with his IR tester - since he gets readings of >200, >299 & >500. Yes I know that >500 is technically also >200, but why the inconsistency? I wonder if some of those were done at 250V, though the report doesn't state that.

3. He's actually ticked 5.12.1 and 5.12.2 for RCD protection for all sockets and for mobile equipment outdoors. Wonder if he did that just on visual and only discovered the RCD failed later?

4. FAIL isn't really an appropriate value for a RCD test result. Either it never tripped or it was above the required limit, but in either case a value of >300ms, >40ms or whatever is usually displayed on the meter and would be more useful in the results sheet imo. It's interesting that apparently the test button did trip it, so if appliances were still connected, then maybe removing them all and testing at the RCBO might have got a pass.

Having said all that, it may well be time for a new board in any case and it would certainly be an upgrade. Whether the price quoted is reasonable depends on whether it's for a dual RCD Screwfix special, or an all RCBO affair with SPD.

 

[timhoward]

2. Something odd going on with his IR tester - since he gets readings of >200, >299 & >500. Yes I know that >500 is technically also >200, but why the inconsistency? I wonder if some of those were done at 250V, though the report doesn't state that.

I spotted that and wondered if it was one of those scenarios where the reading steadily rises and never quite settles. Some testers keep updating the result for ever and I’ve noticed others stop after a few seconds. My Kewtech does the former and deciding what to record when it’s a high pass but ever changing can be fun.

 

[UNG]

As already stated, this is a pretty good report, though as always there are a few oddities - but mostly of pedantic interest.

I would tend to agree that it is not a bad report it just has a few anomalies it

2. Something odd going on with his IR tester - since he gets readings of >200, >299 & >500. Yes I know that >500 is technically also >200, but why the inconsistency? I wonder if some of those were done at 250V, though the report doesn't state that.

Is it the IR tester or a pre fill cert that you use a lower greater than value rather than the actual reading although it could be the IR tester but I'm a bit confused as to why the over range value changes

3. He's actually ticked 5.12.1 and 5.12.2 for RCD protection for all sockets and for mobile equipment outdoors. Wonder if he did that just on visual and only discovered the RCD failed later?

Is this possibly just another case of not proof reading the cert before you send it, it does seem to be a common problem these days

4. FAIL isn't really an appropriate value for a RCD test result. Either it never tripped or it was above the required limit, but in either case a value of >300ms, >40ms or whatever is usually displayed on the meter and would be more useful in the results sheet imo. It's interesting that apparently the test button did trip it, so if appliances were still connected, then maybe removing them all and testing at the RCBO might have got a pass.

There doesn't appear to be any standard way to fill in a cert these days and the only reason for it has to be down to training. Putting the actual figures in would better and even doing a ramp test and noting the outcome would be beneficial even using a different text colour to highlight it

Having said all that, it may well be time for a new board in any case and it would certainly be an upgrade. Whether the price quoted is reasonable depends on whether it's for a dual RCD Screwfix special, or an all RCBO affair with SPD.

Given it can be problematic getting replacement MCB's / RCD's / RCBO's for older boards this quite often is a valid case for replacement of the the CU

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I spotted that and wondered if it was one of those scenarios where the reading steadily rises and never quite settles. Some testers keep updating the result for ever and I’ve noticed others stop after a few seconds. My Kewtech does the former and deciding what to record when it’s a high pass but ever changing can be fun.

My kewtech does this too. On testing, I give it to the count of 20. Then, if it's a passable result that is still rising, I note the result at that time in the form with a '>' sign in front.

 

[stephanjs]

Someone who is doing testing may not have any spare parts to fit a blank plate in. so to walk away and leave it in a potentially dangerous condition without notifying the user is risky. Exposure to live parts is always C1. Depending on where you are, the cost of replacing a 10 way CCU can vary from £400 to £1000. I was surprised to see someone charged £250 per hour to investigate a fault in a property in Richmond.

 

[danieluk84]

Thanks again all

So she spoke to another electrician, yet another opinion. Latest disagrees with observation 3 as a c3, he believes it to be a c2. This has been a real eye opener.

From an outsiders perspective, the EICR is a bit of a mess. One electrician can do the remedial work give you the cert. You could then order a second/third EICR report to be carried out which would have a high chance of failing.
On one hand its open to abuse by incentivising creating more work than necessary. and on the other hand is potentially unsafe. Customers who obtain multiple quotes are likely to pick cheapest electrician who does the least amount of work, which is probably the least safe option.

The electrician doing the EICR should be prohibited from carrying out the subsequent remedial work imo. Or The test carried out by an independent body.

For the same reason i refuse to use a garage to perform my MOT and use a council test centre.

 

[Julie.]

Thanks again all

So she spoke to another electrician, yet another opinion. Latest disagrees with observation 3 as a c3, he believes it to be a c2. This has been a real eye opener.

From an outsiders perspective, the EICR is a bit of a mess. One electrician can do the remedial work give you the cert. You could then order a second/third EICR report to be carried out which would have a high chance of failing.
On one hand its open to abuse by incentivising creating more work than necessary. and on the other hand is potentially unsafe. Customers who obtain multiple quotes are likely to pick cheapest electrician who does the least amount of work, which is probably the least safe option.

The electrician doing the EICR should be prohibited from carrying out the subsequent remedial work imo. Or The test carried out by an independent body.

For the same reason i refuse to use a garage to perform my MOT and use a council test centre.

From an inside perspective, I completely agree with you!

I may not have a popular opinion in this, but I use the mot analogy myself. I belive it should be regulated in the same way, only people specifically trained should be doing it, managed by an approved government body (not schemes) where continuous exchange of standards are made - just like the mot.

There will always be some room for opinion in an assessment - just like a mot, but in no where near as wide a range as occurs at the moment!

 

[Electrics]

From an inside perspective, I completely agree with you!

I may not have a popular opinion in this, but I use the mot analogy myself. I belive it should be regulated in the same way, only people specifically trained should be doing it, managed by an approved government body (not schemes) where continuous exchange of standards are made - just like the mot.

There will always be some room for opinion in an assessment - just like a mot, but in no where near as wide a range as occurs at the moment!

Imo hashgraph public distributed ledgers are going to change all this.

It's possible to have your tester hooked up to an immutable public ledger where people cannot do things like pretend they've done the readings or fiddle the numbers.

I'm sure there's a way to work visual inspection stuff onto there too since immutable and verified photosgraphs are part of the ledgers upcoming use cases.

The hurdle would be getting the government to agree to an overriding authority that definitely designates certain things into a category of urgency.

For example, an exposed bus bar due to lack of a blank plate being inserted = C2. Picture is taken and uploaded to ledger, and via tokenised smart contract the customer agrees to have it remedied on the spot (electrician simply puts a blank plate in).

All immutable, admittable as evidence in a court and everyone is held to account and protected.

There's lots more to it than this but this is the gist and it's coming everywhere, to every product you can think of.

Avery Dennison have actually begun to tokenise and trace products based on their own 'fingerprint' - so you can trace say a breaker back to its origin based on microscopic pictures of the breaker. If you zoom in on material far enough it has its own unique structure like a fingerprint and there are companies out there right now doing it to stop counterfeit items etc. Atma.io are doing it and one of their clients is Adidas.

It's all run on a ledger called Hedera Hashgraph and it's going to be prevalent everywhere within 5-10 years. I can see huge use cases for the electrical industry. Just a shame i don't have the money or technical know-how to implement it in a product. Whoever does will sell it to Megger and Kewtech and be rich.

 

[littlespark]

All that would just add to the cost of an EICR and ongoing training for us lot.
The government would have to demand an EICR on every property, at a regular interval or people just won’t get it done. (I do very few EICRs that aren’t rentals)

Much more in an EICR than an MOT.

 

[Electrics]

All that would just add to the cost of an EICR and ongoing training for us lot.
The government would have to demand an EICR on every property, at a regular interval or people just won’t get it done. (I do very few EICRs that aren’t rentals)

Much more in an EICR than an MOT.

There's a way to do it the way i said it by simply integrating an app into eg a multi function tester and to get pictures taken before the work commences, signed off to be verified by the customer, all via app.

The sticking point would be getting the government involved to lay down standards, removing most of the subjective interpretation. So eg they could say any possibility of putting a finger onto an exposed live part is an instant C1.

Then those doing the EICR cannot be accused of drumming up work since it's all documented and the governments guideline has the final say on whether work needs carrying out or not.

Wouldn't surprise me if Siemens are currently working on such things - they are very into immutable smart homes and are currently going full steam ahead with smart cities - all of which will be run on hashgraph ledger tech.

 

[Julie.]

All that would just add to the cost of an EICR and ongoing training for us lot.
The government would have to demand an EICR on every property, at a regular interval or people just won’t get it done. (I do very few EICRs that aren’t rentals)

Much more in an EICR than an MOT.

But in principle, it's no different.

In a mot a certified inspector checks each aspect in turn, analysing each against an accepted well known standard that is communicated precisely to all inspectors.

That should be the goal for periodic inspections.

It shouldn't be, a person who trained as an installer looks at an old installation, shocked to see it's not done the way they were taught, taking a dislike to it because "that's not the way they would do it" so hardly worth going through it properly because it's definitely not acceptable, or I could get a cu change here*

*replace this with whatever work the person fancies doing.

Obviously not everyone is like this, there are some conscientious people, but as these repeated "failed EICR" threads show, this whole subject is completely misunderstood by many people out there.

And why would it be a cost for everyone, not every garage mechanic is a mot inspector, nor should every electrician be a certified inspector - it should be a specialisation just as some electricians specialise in home bashing, some in industrial, some in fire alarm systems - each area having specific knowledge, not widely known outside of that specialisation

 

[telectrix]

i better contact megger. get them ti fit a 16Mp camera in their new range of MFTs.

 

[Julie.]

I am not sure about photos and integrated data exchange etc.

Sounds too much for me, I would just like to see a better understanding of what a periodic inspection is, and a consistant standard applied.

Easier done by following a similar process to mots - which is but one example there are many areas throughout industry that follow similar processes, - aircraft, ships etc etc.

Many of these are much wider and extensive than a periodic, yet it works in their area.

 

[littlespark]

Let’s see an EICR done for 40 quid like an MOT.

ok. I see how it would be a good idea, but they need to stop the “opinion of the examiner”. faults should be a definite C1,2 or 3….

is it one spark looking for work or being conscientious? Is the other just missing simple faults or not know what they’re doing?