Nearly electrocuted just after EICR — tester denies any responsibility

[maxchristian]

I had the first EICR done on my flat last week, which failed with some C2s for having an older (2001) plastic consumer unit with no RCDs, but otherwise passed:



A couple of days later I'm called to the property due to no hot water and find the electric boiler is dead. There's a connector block in an enclosure under the boiler so I removed the faceplate to have a look and saw continuous blue sparks from a very bad connection, to say the least:


At this stage I'm already feeling aggrieved as this had worked flawlessly for 6 years and suddenly just after the EICR there's this terrible connection that can't have been sparking like that for years, and the control board in the boiler is likely blown (later confirmed).

I'm wondering why there's three neutrals jammed into the same connection and notice one is from a loose cable going down behind the hot water cylinder. Wondering where it goes I reach down to wiggle it and... BANG!


Photo isn't very clear because I've immediately switched the main switch off so it's dark. The cable had bare ends and was just dangling behind the cylinder! It had come into contact with the it as soon as I reached down and thus the bang.

The electrician who did the EICR and the agency I paid deny any responsibility for not finding any of this, saying "checking wiring centers and cables from cylinders is not part of an EICR. Inspection and testing is carried out on the fixed wiring where accessible, as far as the isolator to the heating system, which was carried out."

(The cable isn't from the cylinder and in fact has nothing to do with it.)

Is it really the case that a professional test costing hundreds of pounds isn't even expected to find a live cable with bare ends dangling in an easily-accessible location right next to the consumer unit? Just another box ticking exercise with no real assurance of the safety of the installation at all? Please forgive the rant but this could easily have electrocuted me.

 

[Risteard]

It's absolutely correct and true that not everything will be checked during a periodic inspection and test of an electrical installation. Aside from the cost of doing this, excessive dismantling is liable to introduce faults.

That said, for the likes of a domestic dwelling I would certainly attempt to at least visually inspect externally (without opening) as much of the electrical installation as possible, where visible and accessible. The extent and limitations sections in the report should detail what has been agreed (as well as operational limitations which might exist). I would have flagged numerous issues with that wiring centre without even having removed the cover. That said, I pretty much never issues satisfactory reports - because it's very seldom that you will encounter an installation with no C1, C2 or FI observations.

 

[telectrix]

items 1 & 5 should both be C3.
the missing covers on those boxes for the wiring centre should have been picked up as C2s if nothing else.
and a kick up the arse for the wet-pants that put his pipework directly in front of said boxes.

 

[littlespark]

There is some argument on here as to whether no rcd on sockets is a C2 or a C3 but that’s a different discussion.

They have noted C2’s so the EICR is unsatisfactory. There’s no such thing as “otherwise passed”

There is a box on the report for limitations of testing. Some don’t do wiring centres…. Others may not even open lighting jointboxes… As mentioned above, the act of opening a cover or removing a faceplate to do the tests can actually introduce faults where there wasn’t one before.

A live cable hanging like that is a C1, immediately dangerous situation.
I’m surprised they missed it, but then… a dark cupboard…. Being told not to test wiring centres….

You’ve had this fault for 6 years?
No previous EICR? No work done to the heating within this 6 years?

 

[maxchristian]

You’ve had this fault for 6 years?
No previous EICR? No work done to the heating within this 6 years?

This is the first EICR ever as the property was squatted for a couple of years through the pandemic. It's hard to believe that cable has been dangling there live for 6 years since the gas boiler was removed but it's possible; as far as I know no work has been done during that time. But it can't be a coincidence that the boiler failed due to that bad connection immediately after the EICR, which does show the dangers of poking around to test things — but I've just been almost electrocuted due to not poking around to test things...

 

[timhoward]

Just checking I have this right - you almost got electrocuted after removing a cover, seeing sparks, and sticking your hand in to give the offending wire a wriggle?

 

[maxchristian]

Just checking I have this right - you almost got electrocuted after removing a cover, seeing sparks, and sticking your hand in to give the offending wire a wriggle?

No, the live bare ends were dangling free for anyone to see or touch without removing anything.

 

[snowhead]

Wiring associated with the Unvented cylinder and any other controls associated with it would be checked on the annual inspection done by a G3 registered heating engineer / plumber.

When was the Unvented cylinder last inspected?

 

[littlespark]

Just checking I have this right - you almost got electrocuted after removing a cover, seeing sparks, and sticking your hand in to give the offending wire a wriggle?

I believe the hanging bare wires were already hanging, and not because the cover was removed.
But I do agree, most of us would isolate and test before poking about…
But your general member of the public would not be expecting bare wires.

 

[7029 dave]

Wiring associated with the Unvented cylinder and any other controls associated with it would be checked on the annual inspection done by a G3 registered heating engineer / plumber.

When was the Unvented cylinder last inspected?

You would of thought so but some just about check the gas appliances. and a drop test if your lucky.

 

[snowhead]

You would of thought so but some just about check the gas appliances. and a drop test if your lucky.

That's the Landlords annual gas safety Cert.

Unvented isn't included in that but should be checked annually whether it's part of a gas, oil, electric or Heat pump system.
And it should have a certificate or record of the service / inspection.

A Landlord would have no defence if there was incident involving an Unvented cylinder and could not provide proof of annual checks on it.
This thread is a good example, the wiring is out of the remit of an EICR so whoever did that would have a good defence, unless the cable was hanging down in front of the C.U.

 

[7029 dave]

That's the Landlords annual gas safety Cert.

Unvented isn't included in that but should be checked annually whether it's part of a gas, oil, electric or Heat pump system.
And it should have a certificate or record of the service / inspection.

A Landlord would have no defence if there was incident involving an Unvented cylinder and could not provide proof of annual checks on it.
This thread is a good example, the wiring is out of the remit of an EICR so whoever did that would have a good defence, unless the cable was hanging down in front of the C.U.

Yep up to the FCU is part of the electrical installation. After that it would be classed as fixed appliance.

 

[loz2754]

Yes, tested up to the fcu, but I honestly can't understand why this was not spotted during the EICR visual inspection.
And the limitation to test only up to an fcu would only apply if expressly agreed with the client and recorded in the limitations box.

 

[maxchristian]

Wiring associated with the Unvented cylinder and any other controls associated with it would be checked on the annual inspection done by a G3 registered heating engineer / plumber.

The wiring isn't associated with the unvented cylinder, or any controls associated with it. Just happened to be dangling behind it. And there's no gas so it isn't the gas safety's remit either.

 

[DefyG]

The wiring isn't associated with the unvented cylinder, or any controls associated with it.

From the photograph the cable in question can be seen clearly coming from the 'wiring centre' which IS part of the boiler/cylinder controls.

 

[timhoward]

No, the live bare ends were dangling free for anyone to see or touch without removing anything.

Apologies - I was looking at the connector block photo not the loose flex, rather missing the point.

I'd like to think that I'd have spotted it in an EICR but personally I'd test as far as the FCU and anything beyond would be visual inspection unless I had reason to dig deeper. So if I saw a loose cable I'd certainly go into "I smell a rat" mode, but if it wasn't in sight I wouldn't go looking for it.

But it can't be a coincidence that the boiler failed due to that bad connection immediately after the EICR

I can see it looks suspicious but doesn't really make sense for the tester to have caused that loose connection unless they unwittingly increased tension on the cable, and it would have had to have been loose in advance.

 

[Vortigern]

Personally I would agree with the inspector in that any appliances are ancillary to the fixed wiring installation and that is most definitely not part of an EICR. I would like to think I would have spotted the dangly wire and maybe would have looked into that but mostly I would have been very focussed on the fixed wiring. It is a moot point I agree but given time and cost constraints especially with landlords you simply cannot cover it all. Added to that, appliances are outside the skill set of an electrician and we would generally see all boiler and controls as part of the gas safe inspection. It is not that I do not have an eye to pick up things outside of the remit it is more like my focus is not there. It is a cautionary tale though for me at least. It is very much the LL's responsibility to ensure the installation and appliances are safe. It is something you might consider taking up with your local council?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Something that may be of interest to this thread:

There is a Q and A article by ESF, on periodic inspections, that sort of suggests that EICRs should include the electrical equipment of central heating systems:

Q2.11 Are the relevant tests of regulations 643.2 to 643.11, for example continuity of protective conductors, insulation resistance and earth fault loop impedance, applicable to parts of systems such as room and cylinder thermostats, motorised valves and programmers?

Yes
Regulation number(s):

• 411.3.1.1
• 411.3.2
• 643.7

Wiring Inspection, Testing, Certification & Reporting | Electrical Safety First

Guidance from Electrical Safety First featuring questions and answers relating to periodic inspection, testing, certification and reporting.

www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk

 

[7029 dave]

Something that may be of interest to this thread:

There is a Q and A article by ESF, on periodic inspections, that sort of suggests that EICRs should include the electrical equipment of central heating systems:

Q2.11 Are the relevant tests of regulations 643.2 to 643.11, for example continuity of protective conductors, insulation resistance and earth fault loop impedance, applicable to parts of systems such as room and cylinder thermostats, motorised valves and programmers?

Yes
Regulation number(s):

• 411.3.1.1
• 411.3.2
• 643.7

Wiring Inspection, Testing, Certification & Reporting | Electrical Safety First

Guidance from Electrical Safety First featuring questions and answers relating to periodic inspection, testing, certification and reporting.

www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk

I would not feel comfortable with some of the testing recommended as above, pushing 500V through CH programmer really?, as nearly all of them are delicate electronic pieces of equipment.

 

[RayBlueSky]

I had the first EICR done on my flat last week, which failed with some C2s for having an older (2001) plastic consumer unit with no RCDs, but otherwise passed:

View attachment 95915

A couple of days later I'm called to the property due to no hot water and find the electric boiler is dead. There's a connector block in an enclosure under the boiler so I removed the faceplate to have a look and saw continuous blue sparks from a very bad connection, to say the least:

View attachment 95916
At this stage I'm already feeling aggrieved as this had worked flawlessly for 6 years and suddenly just after the EICR there's this terrible connection that can't have been sparking like that for years, and the control board in the boiler is likely blown (later confirmed).

I'm wondering why there's three neutrals jammed into the same connection and notice one is from a loose cable going down behind the hot water cylinder. Wondering where it goes I reach down to wiggle it and... BANG!

View attachment 95918
Photo isn't very clear because I've immediately switched the main switch off so it's dark. The cable had bare ends and was just dangling behind the cylinder! It had come into contact with the it as soon as I reached down and thus the bang.

The electrician who did the EICR and the agency I paid deny any responsibility for not finding any of this, saying "checking wiring centers and cables from cylinders is not part of an EICR. Inspection and testing is carried out on the fixed wiring where accessible, as far as the isolator to the heating system, which was carried out."

(The cable isn't from the cylinder and in fact has nothing to do with it.)

Is it really the case that a professional test costing hundreds of pounds isn't even expected to find a live cable with bare ends dangling in an easily-accessible location right next to the consumer unit? Just another box ticking exercise with no real assurance of the safety of the installation at all? Please forgive the rant but this could easily have electrocuted me.

I am retired now but i can assure as a QM and also did Periodic Inspection and Testing Certs myself that if i saw that i would have made quick safety mods (connectors and/or insulation tape) to ensure it was not possible to cause an electrical fire or shock risk, especially given there was no RCD protection, it is an essential need during testing to make quick safety mods to ensure risk of shock and or fire is reduced if not eliminated.
However MmMuUuuHHAHHhahAHa You must have been aware it was like this yourself ? you don't need to be qualified to know this is wrong.
No self respecting electrician would leave it like this unless he provided a quote for upgrade/repair and the works were not agreed and did not go ahead. On the up side you did request an Inspection and the company should have given you the full options of testing accompanied with costs for 20% testing of the electrical system or a FULL ON testing if it hadn't been tested since install or 5 years.
I always made it clear that 20% was the minimum and done each year so after 5 years the entire system had been checked and tested. When a car goes in for a MOT they check the whole car, not just the tires, hand brake and wipers.
i understand you are aggrieved and annoyed but most important of all you will get good advice on this forum.
Best Regards RBS Retired 17th Edition