remedial work after EICR.

[Alan Landlord]

hi i had an EICR report done for a property i let. It had a number of C1 and C2 observations. I got a different electrician to come in and correct these as well as replace my old fuse board to a consumer unit.

Following the work, he is giving me 2 additional C2 observations that were not in my EICR report (which was only done 6 months ago).

1. earth cable is 6 mm and does not meet regulation
2. cooker hood and one socket in kitchen are spurred from cooker socket. He wants to run them directly back to consumer unit.

Cost of these 2 jobs is £225. Do i need to do them? Neither appear on my EICR report and i now have an upto date consumer unit.

 

[littlespark]

1. Which earth cable? You have the main earth from the suppliers facility to your consumer unit, but also bonding of metalwork within the building (structural steel, incoming gas pipe, water pipe etc)

2. Can be solved by putting a fused connection unit inbetween. The socket and cooker hood would then be a fused spur


£225 isn’t a huge price for what he wants to do.

 

[timhoward]

This one will be interesting. My thoughts:
If you had an EICR done, and all the remedial work on it covered, then you are in compliance with the PRS legislation.

The CU change should result in an EIC (electrical installation certificate) and that certificate is for new work. New work has to be up to scratch, so he shouldn't have changed the CU if he wasn't happy with the earthing. In my opinion he should have sorted the main earth (if it actually needs sorting) as part of the same job. The EIC doesn't allow for coding new faults as the point is that new work is up to latest regs.

Ask him:
1) what the type of earthing is at the property and whether he's considered the adiabatic equation. (6mm is sometimes fine and not all electricians bother to do the calculations to prove it as the painting-by-numbers way is to simply upgrade it.)
2) why he was happy to do non-compliant work by changing the CU and connecting it to an inadequate main earthing conductor.
3) Where's my EIC for the CU change and did he notify LABC?

Bottom line, unless he's done a complete new ECIR he's no business giving you "new" C2's.

 

[swaRRR]

Ask him:
1) what the type of earthing is at the property and whether he's considered the adiabatic equation. (6mm is sometimes fine

Only if the set up is TNS and the main incomers are 6mm which seems doubtful. Otherwise pg55 OSG says 10mm minimum for earthing conductor.

 

[timhoward]

Only if the set up is TNS

Yes, or TT, which is why I said "sometimes" ;-)

and the main incomers are 6mm

??

Otherwise pg55 OSG says 10mm minimum for earthing conductor.

Yes but the OSG makes no allowance for calculating the required earth size. That's my point. It's a book for people that don't want to think.

 

[Alan Landlord]

This one will be interesting. My thoughts:
If you had an EICR done, and all the remedial work on it covered, then you are in compliance with the PRS legislation.

The CU change should result in an EIC (electrical installation certificate) and that certificate is for new work. New work has to be up to scratch, so he shouldn't have changed the CU if he wasn't happy with the earthing. In my opinion he should have sorted the main earth (if it actually needs sorting) as part of the same job. The EIC doesn't allow for coding new faults as the point is that new work is up to latest regs.

Ask him:
1) what the type of earthing is at the property and whether he's considered the adiabatic equation. (6mm is sometimes fine and not all electricians bother to do the calculations to prove it as the painting-by-numbers way is to simply upgrade it.)
2) why he was happy to do non-compliant work by changing the CU and connecting it to an inadequate main earthing conductor.
3) Where's my EIC for the CU change and did he notify LABC?

Bottom line, unless he's done a complete new ECIR he's no business giving you "new" C2's.

He has not yet provided an EIC for the consumer unit. He has done the work and it all works OK and looks good. I have yet to pay him and he has not invoiced me yet.

His words are "Main Earth , gas earth and water earth are only 6mm and dont meet regulations. "
Honestly, i dont care, they are not on my EICR report, so why should i do anything.

Also looks like there is a kitchen socket and cooker hood spurred off the cooker circuit. He said in his text to me they dont work. But they do work. So again i dont want to do anymore work.

I just want his invoice, to pay him for consumer unit and c2 work he has done and i am finished.

 

[Alan Landlord]

1. Which earth cable? You have the main earth from the suppliers facility to your consumer unit, but also bonding of metalwork within the building (structural steel, incoming gas pipe, water pipe etc)

2. Can be solved by putting a fused connection unit inbetween. The socket and cooker hood would then be a fused spur


£225 isn’t a huge price for what he wants to do.

its not a lot of money agreed. but i dont really want to do the work.

 

[littlespark]

its not a lot of money agreed. but i dont really want to do the work.

Well, as Tim said, it wasn’t on the job remit of the second electrician to find new faults… just fix what’s already been found.

 

[Alan Landlord]

This one will be interesting. My thoughts:
If you had an EICR done, and all the remedial work on it covered, then you are in compliance with the PRS legislation.

The CU change should result in an EIC (electrical installation certificate) and that certificate is for new work. New work has to be up to scratch, so he shouldn't have changed the CU if he wasn't happy with the earthing. In my opinion he should have sorted the main earth (if it actually needs sorting) as part of the same job. The EIC doesn't allow for coding new faults as the point is that new work is up to latest regs.

Ask him:
1) what the type of earthing is at the property and whether he's considered the adiabatic equation. (6mm is sometimes fine and not all electricians bother to do the calculations to prove it as the painting-by-numbers way is to simply upgrade it.)
2) why he was happy to do non-compliant work by changing the CU and connecting it to an inadequate main earthing conductor.
3) Where's my EIC for the CU change and did he notify LABC?

Bottom line, unless he's done a complete new ECIR he's no business giving you "new" C2's.

He hasn't done a new EICR. I sent him the one i had done, as he was correcting issues from it. Not sure whether he has notified LABC. He has been reluctant to invoice me for the work. Only today he has said i need to pay this additional amount.

 

[davesparks]

Only if the set up is TNS and the main incomers are 6mm which seems doubtful. Otherwise pg55 OSG says 10mm minimum for earthing conductor.

The OSG is a guide, not the regulations.

 

[davesparks]

Bottom line, unless he's done a complete new ECIR he's no business giving you "new" C2's.

Well, as Tim said, it wasn’t on the job remit of the second electrician to find new faults… just fix what’s already been found.

However he does have a responsibility to bring any identified faults to the attention of the duty holder.

I'm currently working my way through a list of EICR remedials and have found a few items which were either missed, have occurred since the EICR was completed before lockdown 1, were not part of the 33% inspected. And as I find them I bring them to the attention of the relevant person and advise them what code it would get if I was carrying out an EICR and what can be done about it.

Examples are around 0.5A current in the neutral of a circuit when the live is isolated and an RCBO with terminals in the early stages of burning out.

 

[Alan Landlord]

Dear All, thank you for teh responses so far. Just sent an email back to the electrician.

"Hi xx,

It is not really a job I want to do at the moment (it is not an insignificant cost).

Can you please send through the EIC for the work you have carried out and the invoice for the work. I will pay the invoice. My understanding the EIC does allow for coding new faults."

If he refuses to send through an EIC for the work, where do i go? He has yet to invoice me, so i have not paid for the job.

 

[UNG]

However he does have a responsibility to bring any identified faults to the attention of the duty holder.

I'm currently working my way through a list of EICR remedials and have found a few items which were either missed, have occurred since the EICR was completed before lockdown 1, were not part of the 33% inspected. And as I find them I bring them to the attention of the relevant person and advise them what code it would get if I was carrying out an EICR and what can be done about it.

And this is the big problem with a limited inspection

Examples are around 0.5A current in the neutral of a circuit when the live is isolated and an RCBO with terminals in the early stages of burning out.

Although I don't think when you take the cover off a CU you can say you only actually inspected 33% of it, or you only checked 33% of the screws for tightness

While I will work to a 50% level when doing an EICR if my alarm bells start ringing due to suspect readings or poor installation methods I will dig deeper to make sure I miss nothing that will cause problems and come back to bite me, I take the view that any EICR could turn into a court case if someone is hurt or becomes a fatality and then how do you explain to the court that the %age you inspected and tested wasn't part of the %age that caused the injury or fatality, I would rather be thorough and make a bit less money than cut corners

 

[davesparks]

And this is the big problem with a limited inspection

Although I don't think when you take the cover off a CU you can say you only actually inspected 33% of it, or you only checked 33% of the screws for tightness

While I will work to a 50% level when doing an EICR if my alarm bells start ringing due to suspect readings or poor installation methods I will dig deeper to make sure I miss nothing that will cause problems and come back to bite me, I take the view that any EICR could turn into a court case if someone is hurt or becomes a fatality and then how do you explain to the court that the %age you inspected and tested wasn't part of the %age that caused the injury or fatality, I would rather be thorough and make a bit less money than cut corners

It has become fairly standard in theatres to have EICRs carried out annually with 1/3 of the installation looked at each year as a kind of 3 year rolling process.

 

[brianmoooore]

Limited inspections in domestic property should be confined to those parts of the installation that are inaccessible in reasonable practice, such as floor and ceiling voids.

 

[UNG]

It has become fairly standard in theatres to have EICRs carried out annually with 1/3 of the installation looked at each year as a kind of 3 year rolling process.

So every 3 years the whole installation is checked as more of a PPM process rather than a standard EICR, testing like that is similar to quarterly fire alarm testing where over the 4 quarters every detector is operated meeting the 12 month requirement

The domestic EICR can be a lottery as to what is tested and inspected every 5 years with the some parts checked regularly and some parts that are never checked for many years or only found when a fault occurs. This is one of the grey areas of EICR's IMO that the limits can be set to suit the inspector without the person ordering the EICR understanding what they are actually agreeing to

 

[Pretty Mouth]

His words are "Main Earth , gas earth and water earth are only 6mm and dont meet regulations. "
Honestly, i dont care, they are not on my EICR report, so why should i do anything.

Hi Alan,

It's impossible for us to say whether your electrician's judgement is correct or not in this instance, but let's assume that he is, and a potentially dangerous situation exists.

I believe you as a landlord still have a duty to ensure that the safety standards are met, regardless of whether it's been identified in the EICR or not, and particularly as your 2nd electrician has brought it to your attention.

See the legislation linked to below, points 3.-(1).

It seems you are expected to meet the safety standards, AND have an EICR, not BY having an EICR.

The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020

These Regulations impose duties on private landlords of residential premises in England in respect of electrical safety standards. The duties do not apply to landlords of social housing. The Regulations require local housing authorities to enforce the duties, and include a power to arrange...

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[timhoward]

I'm certainly not very impressed with the reported sequence of events - remedials, extra work agreed to change the board, and then saying 'by the way the earthing and bonding is undersized'. If the installation wasn't in a fit state to be modified he shouldn't have changed the board.
This doesn't help me instantly fully trust the new proclamations, but I do take the point (and agree) that they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

If it were me I'd be inclined to conclude contractual obligations and say "Please put in writing any defects that you have observed during the course of conducting this work".
While this is getting a bit like the infamous gas-cooker sketch, you could then get further advice regarding anything the electrician is willing to state in writing, maybe from the original person who did the EICR.

 

[Dartlec]

And this is the big problem with a limited inspection

Although I don't think when you take the cover off a CU you can say you only actually inspected 33% of it, or you only checked 33% of the screws for tightness

While I will work to a 50% level when doing an EICR if my alarm bells start ringing due to suspect readings or poor installation methods I will dig deeper to make sure I miss nothing that will cause problems and come back to bite me, I take the view that any EICR could turn into a court case if someone is hurt or becomes a fatality and then how do you explain to the court that the %age you inspected and tested wasn't part of the %age that caused the injury or fatality, I would rather be thorough and make a bit less money than cut corners

Personally, I think there are two issues that often get confused with domestic EICRs.

IMO the box that says "extent of the electrical installation" should always cover 100% of circuits on a domestic EICR, unless there is a very good reason and it's listed as an operational limitation. Even if a circuit has to remain live during an inspection, it can still be part of the report, with OPCD, cable size, and Zs taken after all.

There is then the separate issue of how many accessories on each circuit you might remove to check wiring - and that should be noted too.

I think ESF have given some guidance on that, though I can't find it at the moment, but it's something like 1-2 accessories per circuit.

Of course, if the first two you remove have issues (for example missing earths to metal plates), then that should ideally be extended as necessary.

 

[Other_Tucker]

It has become fairly standard in theatres to have EICRs carried out annually with 1/3 of the installation looked at each year as a kind of 3 year rolling process.

If 1/3 of the installation had to be checked 5 years ago, it would have been the easiest and most accessible 1/3. 5 years on the next inspector will of course check the same easily accessible 1/3