Has my UK property had its 10 year inspection performed correctly?

[Oldskool]

I have a property that was built (barn conversion) in 2008. I have the corresponding electrical inspection certificate dated 10-Jul-08, which states performed in accordance with BS7671 2001, amended to March 2004.

I since had an inspection in 2014 with no issues reported.

I have recently had an inspection and have been failed (C2 category, 5.12.1, & 2, & 3), quote…“absence of 30mA RCD protection to all circuits excluding DB1, SP12. The 30mA RCD protection was not raised on report in 2014 and should have been.”

So I have two reports that have not flagged RCD protection as a problem until the most recent, and I am now expected to pay a significant sum to correct this apparent “fail” when this is how the installation was performed and presumably signed off by a competent person, which I am obviously confused and upset about.

Questions

• Was the installation and first inspection performed correctly in 2008?
• What documents would I need determine specification stated in the planning approval?
• If not, do I have any recourse with the builder or electrical company that did the initial installation in 2008?
• Should the most recent inspection have been flagged as “fail” based on the information provided here?

Appreciate any advice you can offer

Thanks

 

[littlespark]

An EICR is not a pass or a fail.... its a report that gives a satisfactory, or unsatisfactory outcome on how safe it is for continued use.

You do not have to use the same company that tested it do the remedial work.

5.12 on the report covers the need for rcd protection on 1. All socket outlets.... 2. For supply to mobile equipment to be used outdoors.... and 3. Cables concealed in wall buried less than 50mm deep.
If they were being this pedantic, they should have listed 5. All circuits supplying luminaires... as well

If there was no RCD installed in the first place, then I would report a C3, improvement recommended.
If there is an RCD, but it doesnt work properly.... then that is a C2, potentially dangerous.

Ultimately, its down to the testing engineer on the day and how strict they might want to report something.
A page full of observations could all be wiped out with one job of replacing a few circuit breakers with RCBOs.... or if the installation is in such a state of disrepair.... it might be the only way to convince the customer to upgrade.

There are unscrupulous individuals who may exagerate the problems somewhat to get the job of repair, but as i say above... you dont need to use the same company.... in fact, get a few quotes for the remedials.


There is a thought that if the property was to be rented out to a tenant, then duty of care would insist on RCD protection throughout.... safest possible.

 

[Oldskool]

Hi, and thank you for the quick reply. Comments much appreciated

Yes, I should have been more specific, it is “unsatisfactory”. However, in terms of my house insurance, it is a fail, as I will not be able to obtain house insurance without a “satisfactory” report. We are in the process of selling, and don’t wish to spend money upgrading unless it is required by law. If there is clear guidance on this, then it removes the opportunity for unscrupulous tradesmen to profit from a situation that they create.

So I guess my question is whether the electrician performing the inspection is governed by the regulations and should report C2 or C3 in this case where it is an existing installation with two satisfactory reports?

 

[PS Electrics]

I have a property that was built (barn conversion) in 2008. I have the corresponding electrical inspection certificate dated 10-Jul-08, which states performed in accordance with BS7671 2001, amended to March 2004.

I since had an inspection in 2014 with no issues reported.

I have recently had an inspection and have been failed (C2 category, 5.12.1, & 2, & 3), quote…“absence of 30mA RCD protection to all circuits excluding DB1, SP12. The 30mA RCD protection was not raised on report in 2014 and should have been.”

So I have two reports that have not flagged RCD protection as a problem until the most recent, and I am now expected to pay a significant sum to correct this apparent “fail” when this is how the installation was performed and presumably signed off by a competent person, which I am obviously confused and upset about.

Questions

• Was the installation and first inspection performed correctly in 2008?
• What documents would I need determine specification stated in the planning approval?
• If not, do I have any recourse with the builder or electrical company that did the initial installation in 2008?
• Should the most recent inspection have been flagged as “fail” based on the information provided here?

Appreciate any advice you can offer

Thanks

Was the work started before the 1st July 2008? If so then the fail for "absence of 30mA RCD protection to all circuits excluding DB1, SP12" is incorrect. Up until 1st July 2008 designers could install to either the 16th or 17th Edition of BS 7671.

There might be sockets without RCD protection that may be used by outdoor equipment that should be addressed though.

 

[Oldskool]

Hi
I'm pretty certain the installation was done prior to July 2008, as the first certificate is a "certificate of installation" not a "condition report". I have planning documents that i downloaded dated 2007, so I believe July 2008 was when it was completed.

Reviewed my notes, and I was told that after 01-Jul-08, "Part P" was in effect (which I presume e must be 15th edition) and all cables needed 30mA RCD protection, and that if it was after Jul-08 the installation cert should of been to installed to 16th edition. That doesn’t sound correct to me, as that suggests you would perform an installation prior to 01-Jul-08 to one edition, and if not completed, be obliged to start again.

So if I go back to this company now, are they obliged to provide a satisfactory report, and if they refuse, do I have recourse to talk to the regulator that they are governed by? I think it’s NICEIC they told me

thanks

 

[westward10]

Can you show the report with personal details redacted?

 

[PS Electrics]

Hi
I'm pretty certain the installation was done prior to July 2008, as the first certificate is a "certificate of installation" not a "condition report". I have planning documents that i downloaded dated 2007, so I believe July 2008 was when it was completed.

Yes I understood that. That was dated the 10th July but the key is if the work was started before the 1st July. You seem to have documentation that shows it was started before 1st July so the C3 for this maybe incorrect if that is the case.

Reviewed my notes, and I was told that after 01-Jul-08, "Part P" was in effect (which I presume e must be 15th edition) and all cables needed 30mA RCD protection, and that if it was after Jul-08 the installation cert should of been to

Part P came into effect in 2005. All circuits ( in Dwellings) requiring RCD protection came in on the 17th Edition of BS7671 which came fully into effect on the 1st July 2008. The previous Edition was the 16th which didn't have this requirement.

installed to 16th edition. That doesn’t sound correct to me, as that suggests you would perform an installation prior to 01-Jul-08 to one edition, and if not completed, be obliged to start again.

Correct but because your Installation Certificate was dated the 10th July it opened up the possibility work started after 1st July. If that was the case then the C3 would be correct and you would have recourse to the installer as work was done to 16th but should have been 17th.

So if I go back to this company now, are they obliged to provide a satisfactory report, and if they refuse, do I have recourse to talk to the regulator that they are governed by? I think it’s NICEIC they told me

thanks

I assume that was the only C2 on the report? If so get back to them and inform them you have documentation that shows the Electrical installation work was started prior to the 1st July and that therefore it was correctly installed to BS7671 2001 (16th Edition) and therefore there was no requirement for all circuits to have RCD protection and see what they say.

Having said the above this company have inspected your property and it is their engineering judgement, The Regulations state that Installations completed to a previous edition of the wiring regulations may not necessarily be unsafe. However they may not change their view and still regard it a C2 (their judgment based on inspecting the property) and in that case you would either have the work done (can be by some one else as Littlespark said) or get another EICR done, a second opinion.

You currently seem to have NO RCD protection at all and I would strongly recommend you at least get some of the Circuits RCD protected. Especially an Electric Shower if there is one and the Socket Circuits.

Also as Littlespark said if this is rented out then I would personally advice you go with having the work done. One thing to take a view on a risk for yourself as opposed to tenants.

Personally if this is rented I wouldn't waste money on a 2nd EICR as that cost could go towards the remedials, shop around for prices and get the work done then it is sorted.

 

[westward10]

@PS Electrics there is no requirements for all circuits in a dwelling to have RCD protection.

 

[newfutile]

quite difficult to avoid rcd on all circuits these days ,all sockets, domestic lighting , bathroom or passing though bathroom, buried less than 50mm in a wall.
of course thats for new work, if renting out i would want that for my tenants

 

[PS Electrics]

@PS Electrics there is no requirements for all circuits in a dwelling to have RCD protection.

No there isn't, I think the all in 5.12 on the EICR as stated by the OP "5.12.1, & 2, & 3), quote…“absence of 30mA RCD protection to all circuits excluding DB1" must mean that all circuits are affected by all the points covered in 5.12 Provision of additional protection by RCD not exceeding 30mA. Well that is how I understood it. So we have a lot of circuits concealed in walls less than 50mm probably.

Your request for the redacted EICR should hopefully shed more light on that.

 

[Oldskool]

Hi

Wiki (if it can be believed states "The 17th edition, released in January 2008 and amended in 2011 ("Amendment 1"), 2013 ("Amendment 2") and January 2015 ("Amendment 3") became effective for all installations designed after 1 July 2008."

It therefore stands to reason that this dwelling's installation was not designed and installed between 01-Jul and 08-Jul.

I think this inspector has got it wrong and it should be C3 and my choice as to whether i act on that.

Redacted Installation and condition reports attached if those help. Aware there are other C2's to be addressed, and have no issue with those

thank for the help

 

[loz2754]

It is irrelevant on what date the installation was completed, although it can be helpful to know.

An EICR is an assessment of the installation compared to the current edition of the regulations, and where there are non-compliances found, it is up to the inspector to determine whether each item should be given a classification code, and what code that should be (C1,C2,C3 etc).

Some inspectors seem to be a bit over zealous, some may be too blasé.
This is why there is commonly accepted industry guidance in the form of Best Practice Guide 4, made available as a free download from Electrical Safety First.

Even so, such guidance is just that - guidance.
The inspector on site must make his own judgement based on his own observations and experience.

 

[PS Electrics]

It is irrelevant on what date the installation was completed, although it can be helpful to know.

Correct but there was an implication that it should have been installed to the 17th when it was installed to the 16th. If the C3 code related to something that should have been installed but wasn't the OP would have had redress to the original installer, if they are still in business that is. We only had the date of the EIC 10th July. It needed to be known that the installation was started before the 1st July 2008. Whilst it was very unlikely a Barn conversion could be done in 9 days one cannot assume anything.

An EICR is an assessment of the installation compared to the current edition of the regulations, and where there are non-compliances found, it is up to the inspector to determine whether each item should be given a classification code, and what code that should be (C1,C2,C3 etc).

Also there is the general guidance that Installations installed to an earlier edition of BS7671 are not necessarily unsafe.

 

[PS Electrics]

I think this inspector has got it wrong and it should be C3 and my choice as to whether i act on that.

From the report it would seem the reason is that cables are concealed and buried to a depth of less than 50mm and do not have RCD protection, I am afraid that is a C2.

As littlespark said, by upgrading it solves a whole raft of potential problems that might be difficult to know for absolute certainty. Such as if a circuit runs through bathroom zone or not, if they do they require RCD protection. Cables installed to a depth of less than 50mm, not possible to know for absolute certainty that this isn't the case for every part of the circuit, if they do then RCD protection required. The possible use of portable equipment outdoors, not always obvious which sockets might actually be used, if all sockets are protected it removes this risk.

Interestingly if you watch the video by Eastway Electrical he installs an RCD socket outlet in a kitchen because of the requirement for RCD protection for portable equipment used outdoors, the socket outlet selected is the closest to the door but it is behind a fridge so not visible and could be missed. There are other socket outlets near windows and it is perfectly possible for someone to open the window and plug in the lawn mower that way for instance. If the whole circuit is protected then all possibilities are covered.

 

[davesparks]

Was the work started before the 1st July 2008? If so then the fail for "absence of 30mA RCD protection to all circuits excluding DB1, SP12" is incorrect. Up until 1st July 2008 designers could install to either the 16th or 17th Edition of BS 7671.

It doesn't matter when it was installed, the EICR is carried out in accordance with current regulations.

 

[davesparks]

Also there is the general guidance that Installations installed to an earlier edition of BS7671 are not necessarily unsafe.

Exactly, 'not necessarily' this does not mean that installations must only ever be judged by the standard they were installed to.

What it means is that some things will not comply with current regulations but do not affect safety and so are not coded, other things which do not comply with current regulations do affect safety and are coded.

Red and black conductors does not comply but does not affect safety so no code.
Lack of RCD protection to domestic light fittings does not comply but does affect safety so is coded.

 

[Teddy Lop]

If I'm reading that right whoever did the original install shouldn't have used TNC-S earthing at that reading so I guess the latest tester is assuming it should be treated as/converted to TT?

Regs are not retro-active in the same way an old car doesn't need ABS to be considered safe but any new work must be to the latest standard.

 

[loz2754]

cables are concealed and buried to a depth of less than 50mm and do not have RCD protection, I am afraid that is a C2

In the Best Practice Guide that's a C3. In Napit Codebreakers it's a C2.

 

[littlespark]

If it was compliment at the time of install, but not up to most recent regs now, then it’s C3: improvement recommended.

Something tested just a few years ago with no rcd on lights wouldn’t be coded… but now would bring a C3…. For example.


I think the OPs issue has been either a very lapse previous EICR which hasn’t been done properly, combined with an over zealous recent engineer…. Resulting in a massive difference of opinions.

 

[Froggie]

Looks like a resonably thorough & competent EICR to me.
I'd have given a C2 for lack of RCD's due to the absence of supplementary bonding in the bathroom if I had high enough resistance between exposed conductive parts to prevent limiting touch voltages. Your 2014 EICR may also have been conducted properly if you've had work undertaken in bathrooms subsequently.
Ultimately it comes down to engineering judgement on the part of the inspector but I feel that they'd be pretty remiss not to give a C2 for an issue that, in the event of a fault, could potentially result in a fatality.

 

[PS Electrics]

In the Best Practice Guide that's a C3. In Napit Codebreakers it's a C2.

NAPIT contributed to that but seemingly the consensus must have disagreed!

 

[mainline]

Looks like a resonably thorough & competent EICR to me.
I'd have given a C2 for lack of RCD's due to the absence of supplementary bonding in the bathroom if I had high enough resistance between exposed conductive parts to prevent limiting touch voltages. Your 2014 EICR may also have been conducted properly if you've had work undertaken in bathrooms subsequently.
Ultimately it comes down to engineering judgement on the part of the inspector but I feel that they'd be pretty remiss not to give a C2 for an issue that, in the event of a fault, could potentially result in a fatality.

Would you agree with all the other c2 s that he's given.

 

[newfutile]

the trouble with BS7671 is we are told to test to the latest edition.but we have no weighting or severity of how bad each failure to meet current regs is, the version its installed to make little difference other than to see if they did a good job at the time.
we mostly all agree that (RCD) Residual Current Device for sockets likely to be used outside are a C2,but how do you code lack of Arc Fault Detection Device in a care home?
light have always been a strange one as there is a C1 on most pendants and only recently has domestic lighting required (RCD) Residual Current Device .
part p was brought in for buried cables now we have electrical safety first and Napit who code differently for lack of (RCD) Residual Current Device here.

i always expected GN3 to give definitive coding but it does not.
while its left to each inspectors opinion we will always get different reports.

 

[brianmoooore]

We test to the latest edition, and this is part of the latest edition "An installation which was designed to an earlier edition of the Regulations and which does not fully comply with the current edition is not necessarily unsafe for continued use, or requires upgrading. Only damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations, which may give rise to danger, should be recorded."

 

[Oldskool]

I did some research, and contacted the NICEIC, and they’ve provided some guidance and advice in the form of Best Practices Guide 4-7.1. They’ve advised;

“the requirements of BS7671 are not retrospectively applied to older installations, except in instances for lack of RCD protection for sockets that have the potential for items to be plugged in and used outside. “

“30mA RCD protection for sockets and cables in walls was introduced in BS7671:2008 (17th edition)”

“If the inspector chooses to deviate against the suggested codes that are given in the document, we would not endorse the coding decision, and it would be up to the inspector alone to justify their outcomes. “



So as far as I can tell

BS7671:2008 came into force 01-Jul-2008 for installations designed after this date. My installation certificate is dated 08-Jul-08, so deigns were done as per plans submitted in 2007 as per 16th edition.

BPG4-7.1

Pg 16 confirms RCD protection for mobile equipment are coded C2

Pg 19 confirms all other RCD points are coded C3

• No idea yet what recourse I have but I will be making a complaint to the NICEIC if my report is not put right as per guidance

I should be able to rectify by installation of a single RCD supplying outside. There is one, but it’s 50A, when should be 40A apparently.

 

[mainline]

I should be able to rectify by installation of a single RCD supplying outside. There is one, but it’s 50A, when should be 40A apparently.

A 50amp RCD would be the carrying capacity, downgrading it to a 40amp would make it a pointless change.

Maybe you meant RCBO ?.

 

[westward10]

I did some research, and contacted the NICEIC, and they’ve provided some guidance and advice in the form of Best Practices Guide 4-7.1. They’ve advised;

“the requirements of BS7671 are not retrospectively applied to older installations, except in instances for lack of RCD protection for sockets that have the potential for items to be plugged in and used outside. “

“30mA RCD protection for sockets and cables in walls was introduced in BS7671:2008 (17th edition)”

“If the inspector chooses to deviate against the suggested codes that are given in the document, we would not endorse the coding decision, and it would be up to the inspector alone to justify their outcomes. “



So as far as I can tell

BS7671:2008 came into force 01-Jul-2008 for installations designed after this date. My installation certificate is dated 08-Jul-08, so deigns were done as per plans submitted in 2007 as per 16th edition.

BPG4-7.1

Pg 16 confirms RCD protection for mobile equipment are coded C2

Pg 19 confirms all other RCD points are coded C3

• No idea yet what recourse I have but I will be making a complaint to the NICEIC if my report is not put right as per guidance

I should be able to rectify by installation of a single RCD supplying outside. There is one, but it’s 50A, when should be 40A apparently.

Nothing to do with the NICEIC as they only give guidance they cannot force you to Code as they see fit. It clearly states it would be up to the inspector alone to justify their outcomes, they cannot make them change it unless they felt their Coding was too lenient.

 

[Oldskool]

I realise NECEIC cannot force an inspector to change a report. However, the NICEIC provide accreditation to electricians, which recognises that they are qualified to perform a particular activity. If an electrician is not able to follow established industry recognised guidelines laid down by the accreditation body, and arbitrarily applies his own opinion to a report that a client requests, expecting it to performed to those industry recognised standards, then that electrician should no longer be accredited by that body.
If there is no mechanism to ensure consistency of standards or remove accreditation if deviation cannot be justified, it makes a mockery of accreditation and renders it meaningless.

 

[loz2754]

I realise NECEIC cannot force an inspector to change a report. However, the NICEIC provide accreditation to electricians, which recognises that they are qualified to perform a particular activity. If an electrician is not able to follow established industry recognised guidelines laid down by the accreditation body, and arbitrarily applies his own opinion to a report that a client requests, expecting it to performed to those industry recognised standards, then that electrician should no longer be accredited by that body.
If there is no mechanism to ensure consistency of standards or remove accreditation if deviation cannot be justified, it makes a mockery of accreditation and renders it meaningless.

And there you have accurately summed up the current state of the industry, which many of us find frustrating.

 

[Oldskool]

We live in an age of ever increasing administrative burden, that is facilitated by more and more paperwork that's easy to generate from software. eg. I am now expected to read literally 89 pages of literature to obtain thatch insurance, which is all designed to trip me up and avoid paying out. It's insane, yet what can i do?

I'd suggest you write to the NICEIC with your frustrations, and examples of incidents that create those frustrations. If nobody provides feedback, they think all is rosy and continue to roll out ever more complex guidelines that many cannot, or will not interpret correctly. It's the consumer who suffers and pays more in the end, for very little value or gain, and that affects us all, when we could be spending our money on things that truly benefit us all, or paying more tax without feeling the pinch.....

putting my soapbox away now...lol

 

[UNG]

I realise NECEIC cannot force an inspector to change a report. However, the NICEIC provide accreditation to electricians, which recognises that they are qualified to perform a particular activity.

But while they maybe suitably qualified there is no assessment made by any of the accredition bodies as to whether they have sufficient experience and knowledge to carry out EICR's
The current EICR you have looks more like a NAPIT report given the colours and layout so why would the NICEIC have any interest

If an electrician is not able to follow established industry recognised guidelines laid down by the accreditation body, and arbitrarily applies his own opinion to a report that a client requests, expecting it to performed to those industry recognised standards, then that electrician should no longer be accredited by that body.

The industry guidelines are set out by the IET in BS7176 there are various other publications which offer guidance but only offer a one size fits all solution which does not necessarily fit all installations and their varying levels of delapidation and maintenance and the ever changing legislative and regulatory changes since the initial installation

If there is no mechanism to ensure consistency of standards or remove accreditation if deviation cannot be justified, it makes a mockery of accreditation and renders it meaningless.

When it comes to I&T it is difficult to guarantee any consistency with the levels of qualifications and more importantly the knowledge and experience of any given inspector, it is widely accepted that some companies are actively looking for remedial works to bolster the low initial inspection costs

Reading both the initial report and the latest EICR it does raise other questions regarding the 2014 report that is mentioned and the frequency of the EICR's given that it is a thatched property and then we are back to the competence of the inspector

With regard to the latest report
the "calculated" Zs results for Lights 1 - 5 seem odd and likely down to an R2 wander lead not being nulled when testing R2
it seems to be completely missing the test results for DB3
there is a lot of N/A's where it would have been just as easy to note DB locations or "supplied from" info

The next recommended inspection at 10 years in the latest report seems to have ignored the recommendation that thatched properties are electrically inspected every 5 years given that the previous inspection was in 2014 it does raise other questions about that report especially when the initial installation cert recommended 5 years

So I have two reports that have not flagged RCD protection as a problem until the most recent,

Are you referring to the original installation cert and the 2014 report or do you have another report

and I am now expected to pay a significant sum to correct this apparent “fail” when this is how the installation was performed and presumably signed off by a competent person, which I am obviously confused and upset about.

Given that the cost of RCBO's has fallen in recent times to install them at the time of the initial installation may have incurred a quite significant cost back then which you may have chosen not to accept. If they were installed back in 2008 they would be AC type when currently with the changes to the regs A type or sometimes B type are the required norm

Questions - Answers in blue

• Was the installation and first inspection performed correctly in 2008? IMO yes
• What documents would I need determine specification stated in the planning approval? not sure what you are asking in relation to the electrical installation
• If not, do I have any recourse with the builder or electrical company that did the initial installation in 2008? the original design met the requirements of BS7671 at the time you could ask why you were not given the option of RCBO's at additional cost but I doubt you would get very far persuing it and the time spent and costs that would be incurred would be better spent updating the installation to meet current regs
• Should the most recent inspection have been flagged as “fail” based on the information provided here? It is difficult to give a definitive answer sat at a keyboard having never seen the installation my opinion as an inspector on the ground may differ to the one you have with the current EICR with regard to the remedial works get a few quotes / opinions from a few other electricians locally

As a footnote it may be worth checking your property insurance as from past experience they can be a bit picky when it comes to thatched properties and the fire risk

 

[Oldskool]

But while they maybe suitably qualified there is no assessment made by any of the accredition bodies as to whether they have sufficient experience and knowledge to carry out EICR's
The current EICR you have looks more like a NAPIT report given the colours and layout so why would the NICEIC have any interest

The industry guidelines are set out by the IET in BS7176 there are various other publications which offer guidance but only offer a one size fits all solution which does not necessarily fit all installations and their varying levels of delapidation and maintenance and the ever changing legislative and regulatory changes since the initial installation

When it comes to I&T it is difficult to guarantee any consistency with the levels of qualifications and more importantly the knowledge and experience of any given inspector, it is widely accepted that some companies are actively looking for remedial works to bolster the low initial inspection costs

Reading both the initial report and the latest EICR it does raise other questions regarding the 2014 report that is mentioned and the frequency of the EICR's given that it is a thatched property and then we are back to the competence of the inspector

With regard to the latest report
the "calculated" Zs results for Lights 1 - 5 seem odd and likely down to an R2 wander lead not being nulled when testing R2
it seems to be completely missing the test results for DB3
there is a lot of N/A's where it would have been just as easy to note DB locations or "supplied from" info

The next recommended inspection at 10 years in the latest report seems to have ignored the recommendation that thatched properties are electrically inspected every 5 years given that the previous inspection was in 2014 it does raise other questions about that report especially when the initial installation cert recommended 5 years


Are you referring to the original installation cert and the 2014 report or do you have another report

Given that the cost of RCBO's has fallen in recent times to install them at the time of the initial installation may have incurred a quite significant cost back then which you may have chosen not to accept. If they were installed back in 2008 they would be AC type when currently with the changes to the regs A type or sometimes B type are the required norm


As a footnote it may be worth checking your property insurance as from past experience they can be a bit picky when it comes to thatched properties and the fire risk

And there you have accurately summed up the current state of the industry, which many of us find frustrating.

But while they maybe suitably qualified there is no assessment made by any of the accredition bodies as to whether they have sufficient experience and knowledge to carry out EICR's
The current EICR you have looks more like a NAPIT report given the colours and layout so why would the NICEIC have any interest

The industry guidelines are set out by the IET in BS7176 there are various other publications which offer guidance but only offer a one size fits all solution which does not necessarily fit all installations and their varying levels of delapidation and maintenance and the ever changing legislative and regulatory changes since the initial installation

When it comes to I&T it is difficult to guarantee any consistency with the levels of qualifications and more importantly the knowledge and experience of any given inspector, it is widely accepted that some companies are actively looking for remedial works to bolster the low initial inspection costs

Reading both the initial report and the latest EICR it does raise other questions regarding the 2014 report that is mentioned and the frequency of the EICR's given that it is a thatched property and then we are back to the competence of the inspector

With regard to the latest report
the "calculated" Zs results for Lights 1 - 5 seem odd and likely down to an R2 wander lead not being nulled when testing R2
it seems to be completely missing the test results for DB3
there is a lot of N/A's where it would have been just as easy to note DB locations or "supplied from" info

The next recommended inspection at 10 years in the latest report seems to have ignored the recommendation that thatched properties are electrically inspected every 5 years given that the previous inspection was in 2014 it does raise other questions about that report especially when the initial installation cert recommended 5 years


Are you referring to the original installation cert and the 2014 report or do you have another report

Given that the cost of RCBO's has fallen in recent times to install them at the time of the initial installation may have incurred a quite significant cost back then which you may have chosen not to accept. If they were installed back in 2008 they would be AC type when currently with the changes to the regs A type or sometimes B type are the required norm


As a footnote it may be worth checking your property insurance as from past experience they can be a bit picky when it comes to thatched properties and the fire risk

Hi...thanks for the comments and taking time to look at the report

"Reading both the initial report and the latest EICR it does raise other questions regarding the 2014 report that is mentioned and the frequency of the EICR's given that it is a thatched property and then we are back to the competence of the inspector".....agree, I don't think my 2014 report was done correctly but for other reasons

"The next recommended inspection at 10 years in the latest report seems to have ignored the recommendation that thatched properties are electrically inspected every 5 years given that the previous inspection was in 2014 it does raise other questions about that report especially when the initial installation cert recommended 5 years"......insurance company asks for 10 years. Not sure why the installation cert recommended 5 years. I suspect it was to generate business. Long story, but the person who did it lived in one of the properties here, and was a bit of a chancer as far as I could tell.

Bottom line, i am resigned to upgrading based on a couple of the points I don't dispute the C2 coding.

thanks again

 

[littlespark]

There was a forum thread not long ago about electrical work in thatch roofed house, maybe worth a read if you can find it.

Basically boils down to extra protection from small critters and the increased risk of fire.

 

[UNG]

Just found this on electrical installations in thatched properties

Electrical Fire Safety Considerations | Thatch Advice Centre

Some fire problems are due to electrics. So click through to the Thatch Advice Centre for ways to drastically reduce this fire risk on your thatch property.

www.thatchadvicecentre.co.uk

 

[brianmoooore]

The metal conduit bit sounds a bit OTT. I've fitted miles of plastic conduit in vermin infested farm buildings over the years, and have never seen as much as a tooth mark in it. The whole risk from electrics is a bit overstated IMHO - wiring doesn't normally lie anywhere near the roof covering in most lofts, and if a fire does start in the loft of any dwelling, the heat build up is such that it makes little difference as to what the actual roof covering is.
Last two to burn near me were both started by sparks from a chimney.

 

[UNG]

The metal conduit bit sounds a bit OTT. I've fitted miles of plastic conduit in vermin infested farm buildings over the years, and have never seen as much as a tooth mark in it.

Plastic conduit must not be as tasty as PEX pipe as I have seen loads of that where it has been chewed and in some cases chewed through to the water

 

[brianmoooore]

PEX does indeed get chewed, possibly as a result of its installation methods. You'll find plenty of PEX passing through holes in joists (blocking the vermins' way), but it would be unusual to find conduit installed like this.
I always use barrier PEX, rather than plain, in the totally unsubstantiated hope that this is more vermin resistant.

 

[UNG]

I always use barrier PEX, rather than plain, in the totally unsubstantiated hope that this is more vermin resistant.

From experience it isn't

 

[cliffed]

It is irrelevant on what date the installation was completed, although it can be helpful to know.

An EICR is an assessment of the installation compared to the current edition of the regulations, and where there are non-compliances found, it is up to the inspector to determine whether each item should be given a classification code, and what code that should be (C1,C2,C3 etc).

Some inspectors seem to be a bit over zealous, some may be too blasé.
This is why there is commonly accepted industry guidance in the form of Best Practice Guide 4, made available as a free download from Electrical Safety First.

Even so, such guidance is just that - guidance.
The inspector on site must make his own judgement based on his own observations and experience.

0.63/0.50 Tncs Ze over the required limit max 0.35