RCD Test failure question

[MatttB]

Hi there,
I’m a confused landlord after a bit of advice please... I had my property renovated including electric 6 years ago. The RCD operating time for lights was tested at 16.4ms back then. Another electrician (arranges by the letting agent) has just completed the updated EICR and failed the RCD for additional protection at 5x residual current. He now wants £200 to put this right... Two questions... 1) Is there any reason why the RCD performance would have deteriorated like this? 2) Does £200 (in Shropshire) sound about right to sort the issue?
Thanks for any feedback

 

[westward10]

Do you have a copy of the EICR.

 

[Julie.]

Yes rcds can fail in this regard, what is the operating time on the eicr he has given you?

 

[davesparks]

Were there any other failed, or low, test results mentioned?
What is the x1 and x5 tripping time for the RCD which has failed? This information will be on the schedule of test results attached to the report you have been given.

There is no requirment to use the same electrician to carry out the remedial works, you can use any electrician.

 

[MatttB]

Do you have a copy of the EICR.

Yes and in fact it doesn’t look like the trip time is the issue. Sorry. The fail is for 4.19. Could that be because the overcurrent protective device for upstairs sockets is rated at 20A but needs to be upgraded to 32A? Thanks for your help

 

[Julie.]

Yes and in fact it doesn’t look like the trip time is the issue. Sorry. The fail is for 4.19. Could that be because the overcurrent protective device for upstairs sockets is rated at 20A but needs to be upgraded to 32A? Thanks for your help

Could you post the relevant part of the eicr, that shouldn't really result in a fail c1/c2 , but it really depends on what the issue is.

 

[JBW175]

4.19 on am EICR is provision of RCD for additional protection.

What’s he / she coded it as? They should have given an explanation on the observations section.

 

[MatttB]

Could you post the relevant part of the eicr, that shouldn't really result in a fail c1/c2 , but it really depends on what the issue is.

Hi Julie... Here’s the test report. Grateful for your opinion.
[automerge]1596741636[/automerge]

4.19 on am EICR is provision of RCD for additional protection.

What’s he / she coded it as? They should have given an explanation on the observations section.

Here’s the observations section.. as you can see he highlighted the trip time.
[automerge]1596741724[/automerge]

4.19 on am EICR is provision of RCD for additional protection.

What’s he / she coded it as? They should have given an explanation on the observations section.

Thanks JBW... I have attached the observations. What do you think??

 

[telectrix]

I'll hazard a guess pending further info. that he's failed it on no RCD additional protection for lighting. this is a new reg. as per 18th edition. if that's the case, then it should have been paseed with maybe a C3 ( improvment recommended ).

 

[JBW175]

That’s hard to read, but I can’t see why they’d write >300 & >40 in the boxes instead of putting the actual measured trip times in.

 

[davesparks]

Based on those test results it appears that the RCD has indeed failed testing.
I agree with the C2 code, but the price of £200 just to replace an RCD seems a bit steep to me.
[automerge]1596741968[/automerge]

I'll hazard a guess pending further info. that he's failed it on no RCD additional protection for lighting. this is a new reg. as per 18th edition. if that's the case, then it should have been paseed with maybe a C3 ( improvment recommended ).

The test results show the RCD appears to protect all circuits and has failed testing.
[automerge]1596742049[/automerge]

That’s hard to read, but I can’t see why they’d write >300 & >40 in the boxes instead of putting the actual measured trip times in.

Because that is what the tester will have displayed when the RCD failed to trip in less than 300mS and 40mS.

Personally I would probably put an X in the box for a failure but the software used may not allow that.

 

[MatttB]

I'll hazard a guess pending further info. that he's failed it on no RCD additional protection for lighting. this is a new reg. as per 18th edition. if that's the case, then it should have been paseed with maybe a C3 ( improvment recommended ).

I'll hazard a guess pending further info. that he's failed it on no RCD additional protection for lighting. this is a new reg. as per 18th edition. if that's the case, then it should have been paseed with maybe a C3 ( improvment recommended ).

Thanks telectrix... What do I look for on the test report to show this? What would he do to fix it?

 

[telectrix]

if RCD needs replacing, £200 is well over the top. although there could potentially be a N-E fault somewhere causing the problem.
[automerge]1596742203[/automerge]
any chance of a pic of your consumer unit with the lid open, showing the rCD/s and MCBs?

 

[JBW175]

Because that is what the tester will have displayed when the RCD failed to trip in less than 300mS and 40mS.

Personally I would probably put an X in the box for a failure but the software used may not allow that.

Fair one Dave, I’ve never had one fail on me so wasn’t aware that’s what the meter would display. Every days a school day. ?

 

[westward10]

What make is the consumer unit.

 

[MatttB]

Based on those test results it appears that the RCD has indeed failed testing.
I agree with the C2 code, but the price of £200 just to replace an RCD seems a bit steep to me.
[automerge]1596741968[/automerge]


The test results show the RCD appears to protect all circuits and has failed testing.
[automerge]1596742049[/automerge]


Because that is what the tester will have displayed when the RCD failed to trip in less than 300mS and 40mS.

Personally I would probably put an X in the box for a failure but the software used may not allow that.

Thanks Dave... Any idea why the RCD would have deteriorated since previous test? I have attached the previous report...
Thanks for your opinion

 

[westward10]

The old schedule indicates the consumer unit is dual rcd have they both failed. The two schedules don't tally with each other.

 

[MatttB]

What make is the consumer unit.

I don’t know. The paperwork I have just describes it as a dual RCD 5+5 MCB Type 2.. it was installed in 2014...

 

[Julie.]

Agree with the above, I assume you have a single RCD for the whole board, it looks like this needs replacing so a valid observation C2.

Sorry just noticed that you say dual RCD - it would be unusual for both to go.

Could you take a photo of the CU from the front - ideally with the cover up so we can see the MCBs/RCDs

As for cost, that is quite expensive for most units, but depending on the consumer unit ("Fuse board") make, could well be reasonable

 

[davesparks]

Thanks Dave... Any idea why the RCD would have deteriorated since previous test? I have attached the previous report...
Thanks for your opinion

That changes things significantly, the original certificate clearly shows that there are two RCDs. The new report suggests that there is only one.
I seriously doubt that both RCDs have failed, one failure is rare but possible.

I would contact the person who did the report and ask them which of the two RCDs failed, or if it was both. I would also ask them if they tripped when the test button was pressed.

If you can access the property I'd go there and press the test buttons to see if they trip, this does not guarantee that they will trip in the correct time though.

Seeing that original certificate has made me very suspicious of the new report. I can't say anything for sure but it has set an alarm bell ringing in my head.