Is my Property Electrical Test and Inspection Report Misleading?

[SYKRAPS]

I am in York.

The items in Section G:

1. main bonding to gas/water - code 1
2. no earth sleeving on shower enclosure - code 2
3. No RCD protection on any circuit (is now 17th ed)

Section H:

installation in order, requires items listed to bring upto current regulation

If there is a code 1 the installation is deemed as unsatisfactory unless rectified.

I'm not far away if you want a 2nd opinion mate

 

[Octopus]

411.3.1.1 (final para)
"A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lamp holder having no exposed-conductive parts and suspended from a point."

And your point is?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

First para:
"Exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to a protective conductor under the specific conditions for each type of system earthing as specified in Regulations 411.4 to 6."

411.4.2 final para:
"Each exposed-conductive-part of the installation shall be connected by a protective conductor to the main earthing terminal of the installation, which shall be connected to the earthed point of the power supply system."
411.5.1:
"Every exposed-conductive-part which is to be protected by a single protective device shall be connected, via the main earthing terminal, to a common earth electrode. However, if two or more protective devices are in series, the exposed-conductive-parts may be connected to separate earth electrodes corresponding to each protective device."
411.6.2:
"Exposed-conductive-parts shall be earthed individually, in groups, or collectively."

If there are no exposed-conductive-parts on a circuit, what use would a CPC be?

yep....class 1s are the demon here...

- - - Updated - - -

And your point is?

yep....compliant when installed...

 

[GLENNSPARK]

If there is a code 1 the installation is deemed as unsatisfactory unless rectified.

I'm not far away if you want a 2nd opinion mate

i would have thought that absence of main bonding was a 2....dangerous under fault conditions....still a fail though...

 

[SYKRAPS]

i would have thought that absence of main bonding was a 2....dangerous under fault conditions....still a fail though...

Yes but if the electrician who tested it recorded a code 1 then it is unsatisfactory is the point that I was making, after all who am I to pass judgement on an installation that I have not seen ;-)

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Yes but if the electrician who tested it recorded a code 1 then it is unsatisfactory is the point that I was making, after all who am I to pass judgement on an installation that I have not seen ;-)

ok...no probs syk...

 

[brman]

So to sum it up for the OP. Either the original inspector or the latest electrician has make a mistake.
IF there is no cpc (circuit protective conductor or earth) on the lights then the inspection report should have said so and should not have a size for the cpc or a R1+R2 or Zs figure for that circuit.
IF there is a cpc then the latest spark has make a "mistake".

Assuming there is no cpc then this does not need a rewire. It can be solved in 2 ways...
1) Run a cpc (or new cabling) to the circuit. Ok. that is a partial rewire but shouldn't be costing £2k.
2) Ensure the circuit has RCD protection* and all accessories (switches and lights) are class 2. i.e they are double insulated, not metal.
* I don't think RCD protection strictly has to be added but it does help making it safer so I would recommend it anyway.

As has been said, it might not meet the latest regulations but you don't need to retrospectively update an installation unless it is dangerous.

A couple more points though.
1) It is possible to get a R1+R2 and Zs figure on a report where there is no cpc on part of the circuit. If the circuit has been updated over the years then part of it could be old wiring without a cpc and part newer wiring with a cpc. So a report could contain a R1+R2 for part of the circuit. However it should still clearly state that part of the circuit doesn't have a cpc. The only get-out here for the inspector is that the inspection is on a sampling basis so not all accessories (and hence parts of the circuit) are inspected. He could argue that that is how it was missed although he should have used his experience to spot that sort of thing.

2) Although it has been stated this doesn't need a rewire, the latest spark may have made a sensible judgement that the overall state of the wiring or poor access would make it more cost affective to just do a full rewire rather than waste hours trying to "bodge" the current system. He may also have decided it isn't the sort of work he likes doing so has quoted high to put you off using him (or give him a decent return if he ends up doing it). In this situation I prefer to be honest and just say I don't want to do the work but others work differently.

So us saying "that is too much money for that problem" without actually seeing the problem ourselves isn't really fair. Hence all the comments about getting a 2nd opinion.

Sorry guys, I know I am mostly repeating what has already been said but hopefully this is of some use to the OP.

 

[malcolmsanford]

411.3.1.1 (final para)
"A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lamp holder having no exposed-conductive parts and suspended from a point."

I personally would have gone with regulation 412.2.3.2 and possibly a code 3. if indeed there is no CPC in the lighting circuit.

As stated when this system was installed there was a good chance that it may have been designed to a lot earlier edition, as Spin points out and so should be inspected as such.

For me though if there is no CPC at the lights, and regardless of what type fittings are installed. I would have hope a competent inspector would have had least noted this in the observations section and guided the client as necessary

 

[GLENNSPARK]

So to sum it up for the OP. Either the original inspector or the latest electrician has make a mistake.
IF there is no cpc (circuit protective conductor or earth) on the lights then the inspection report should have said so and should not have a size for the cpc or a R1+R2 or Zs figure for that circuit.
IF there is a cpc then the latest spark has make a "mistake".

Assuming there is no cpc then this does not need a rewire. It can be solved in 2 ways...
1) Run a cpc (or new cabling) to the circuit. Ok. that is a partial rewire but shouldn't be costing £2k.
2) Ensure the circuit has RCD protection* and all accessories (switches and lights) are class 2. i.e they are double insulated, not metal.
* I don't think RCD protection strictly has to be added but it does help making it safer so I would recommend it anyway.

As has been said, it might not meet the latest regulations but you don't need to retrospectively update an installation unless it is dangerous.

A couple more points though.
1) It is possible to get a R1+R2 and Zs figure on a report where there is no cpc on part of the circuit. If the circuit has been updated over the years then part of it could be old wiring without a cpc and part newer wiring with a cpc. So a report could contain a R1+R2 for part of the circuit. However it should still clearly state that part of the circuit doesn't have a cpc. The only get-out here for the inspector is that the inspection is on a sampling basis so not all accessories (and hence parts of the circuit) are inspected. He could argue that that is how it was missed although he should have used his experience to spot that sort of thing.

2) Although it has been stated this doesn't need a rewire, the latest spark may have made a sensible judgement that the overall state of the wiring or poor access would make it more cost affective to just do a full rewire rather than waste hours trying to "bodge" the current system. He may also have decided it isn't the sort of work he likes doing so has quoted high to put you off using him (or give him a decent return if he ends up doing it). In this situation I prefer to be honest and just say I don't want to do the work but others work differently.

So us saying "that is too much money for that problem" without actually seeing the problem ourselves isn't really fair. Hence all the comments about getting a 2nd opinion.

Sorry guys, I know I am mostly repeating what has already been said but hopefully this is of some use to the OP.

you have mentioned sampling here......
well...if i found anomalies and absence of CPCs and general old age.....i wouldn`t just hold it at 10%....would you?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

So to sum it up for the OP. Either the original inspector or the latest electrician has make a mistake.
IF there is no cpc (circuit protective conductor or earth) on the lights then the inspection report should have said so and should not have a size for the cpc or a R1+R2 or Zs figure for that circuit.
IF there is a cpc then the latest spark has make a "mistake".

Assuming there is no cpc then this does not need a rewire. It can be solved in 2 ways...
1) Run a cpc (or new cabling) to the circuit. Ok. that is a partial rewire but shouldn't be costing £2k.
2) Ensure the circuit has RCD protection* and all accessories (switches and lights) are class 2. i.e they are double insulated, not metal.
* I don't think RCD protection strictly has to be added but it does help making it safer so I would recommend it anyway.

As has been said, it might not meet the latest regulations but you don't need to retrospectively update an installation unless it is dangerous.

A couple more points though.
1) It is possible to get a R1+R2 and Zs figure on a report where there is no cpc on part of the circuit. If the circuit has been updated over the years then part of it could be old wiring without a cpc and part newer wiring with a cpc. So a report could contain a R1+R2 for part of the circuit. However it should still clearly state that part of the circuit doesn't have a cpc. The only get-out here for the inspector is that the inspection is on a sampling basis so not all accessories (and hence parts of the circuit) are inspected. He could argue that that is how it was missed although he should have used his experience to spot that sort of thing.

2) Although it has been stated this doesn't need a rewire, the latest spark may have made a sensible judgement that the overall state of the wiring or poor access would make it more cost affective to just do a full rewire rather than waste hours trying to "bodge" the current system. He may also have decided it isn't the sort of work he likes doing so has quoted high to put you off using him (or give him a decent return if he ends up doing it). In this situation I prefer to be honest and just say I don't want to do the work but others work differently.

So us saying "that is too much money for that problem" without actually seeing the problem ourselves isn't really fair. Hence all the comments about getting a 2nd opinion.

Sorry guys, I know I am mostly repeating what has already been said but hopefully this is of some use to the OP.

and how is running a seperate 4mm CPC a bodge?......