Looking for opinion on whether this scenario is compliant

[The Ghost]

Went to daughters house to replace a couple of broken sockets and did a Zs and RCD test after replacing. CU was replaced and notice on it said inspected 2015. Plastic dual RCD 30 ma/Main switch 60947-3 isolator. System is TT. (100ma RCD?)
Zs at socket was 11.75 ohms L-PE 2.64 ohms L-N. No bonding present to services. Suggested my daughter might get the council in to check it out. Had a phone call today and electrician said it is all compliant! He also said it disconnects in 0.37ms and I asked to talk to him he would not. He said I was just trying to make money, if only he knew? Apparently he fixed the bonding in a few minutes.
I said to my daughter tell him it should be 0.2 (the property is not cross bonded as in the exception to table 41.1) he said that was the case 20 years ago and I needed to get up to date. Okay!
I must confess to be a little bit taken aback by this and thought I would do a sanity check with the forum members. I do have Amd 3 BS7671 by the way i.e. 2382-15 so I think I am up to date.
Essentially I am of course concerned for my daughter, and what appears to be possibly a cavalier attitude. I told my daughter to get a copy of the report and tests so we await that. Am I being concerned over nothing or just plain stupid??? Tin hat on.

 

[Dillb]

Who arranged the work and who were the certs issued too?

Is she the homeowner or just a tenant?

 

[Strima]

The 0.37mS time for the RCD would comply at both 1x and 5xIn so would pass.

As for plastic board in 2015 all depends on when the installation was designed, might be the council has a generic design for those properties.

 

[Wilko]

Sorry but what disconnects what in 0.37 ms?

 

[The Ghost]

Sorry but what disconnects in 0.37 ms

I presume the RCD test.

Who arranged the work and who were the certs issued too?

Is she the homeowner or just a tenant?

Tenant, the council arranged the work and presumbaly got the cert, my daughter did not.

 

[magnoliafan89]

Ive been told that 100ma isnt sufficient enough now amd that it needs to be 30ma. If its a tt system surely the zs at the socket is ok??

 

[Dillb]

I presume the RCD test.
Tenant, the council arranged the work and presumbaly got the cert, my daughter did not.

You should contact the council then and express any concerns as they ordered the work.

 

[The Ghost]

The 0.37mS time for the RCD would comply at both 1x and 5xIn so would pass.

Ok so what about table 41.1 TT?

 

[Andy78]

I doubt the RCD trips in 0.37ms, or 0.37s. A more likely result is 37ms.

 

[The Ghost]

zs at the socket is ok??

Well as I read it with 80% rule 1.06 on 32a yes?

 

[buzzlightyear]

considering it could be council proprty ,then your daughter should contact them .and rectify the damaged sockets .not you Vort .you had no write to do such work unless you have their writen consent.

 

[The Ghost]

daughter should contact them

She did and no response and with a toddler and boy there I thought...well change it.

 

[westward10]

0.37ms, that is quick what meter did he have.

Beaten to it

 

[The Ghost]

You should contact the council then and express any concerns as they ordered the work

Exactly what happened and the above is the result.

 

[Dillb]

She did and no response and with a toddler and boy there I thought...well change it.

How did she contact them? Write a letter and send it recorded delivery. Theres a good chance they will be more likely to give a suitable reply.

 

[The Ghost]

0.37ms, that is quick what meter did he have.

To be clear when I checked the RCD I got at x 1 37ms at x5 13 ms

 

[The Ghost]

How did she contact them

Online system and the only way you can contact housing repairs.

 

[Wilko]

Just for fun
L-N at 2.64 Ohms implies 0.95x230/2.64x0.8 = 66A so it's good to disconnect B10 or C6 on a short .

 

[westward10]

The rcds are providing fault protection so the only issue is bonding??

 

[The Ghost]

Sorry but what disconnects what in 0.37 ms?

Yes, well chinese whispers I was quoting verbatim, however we must all assume what was meant is 37ms which is the same as what I got. But TT?