Rewire after failed EICR. Have we been scammed?

[Peggyhenry89]

Yes, test results say there is in one column but no test times, etc, for that, and the lack of RCD aspect is there as a C3 point.

Do you have a photo showing an RCD was actually present?

My suspicion is there was none but the form was auto-filled to have that column completed. Do you know when that installation was dated from?

Ze would be the "means of earthing" alone so could be 24 ohms as quite reasonable for a rod or two.

Zs is the in-use impedance with any bonding, etc, present. Are there measure Zs figures for individual circuits? They would show if bonding was taking the figure down to < 1 ohm, etc.

It is not uncommon for pipe work to be bonded in other nearby properties to a TN-C-S or TN-S system and so they can well drop the impedance down that way, but it is not reliable as anyone anywhere on the system can make a repair and not maintain electrical continuity quite legitimately.

Sorry I don't know exactly when it was first installed but I could have been 80s perhaps and I unfortunately do not have any pics of the original install.

Either way. The lack of RCDs is not down as a C2 and even if it was the statement saying that the complete rewire of both flat and shop is misleading.

Thanks for your advice. I'm still pretty new to this but if my parents have been scammed I'd like to pursue it. Although I will admit that we were all a but naive at the time and should've questioned it but we put our trust in the letting agent and the inspector

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Just to add that when you are characterising a system there are two distinct aspects to measure:

• The Ze as the official "means of earthing". This is the value you ought to depend on for circuit desing and generally it would dictate if fault clearing on OCPD is possible (usual case on TN supplies) or if you are dependant on an RCD (usual case for TT).
• The Zs as the in-use impedance. That allows a measurement of both the PFC (fault to earth current) and the PSCC (L-N fault) so you know the highest current that any OCPD has to interrupt.

In most cases your standard CU MCB/RCBO on a domestic supply has no problems in interrupting the maximum current, but older rewirable fuses can have breaking limits as low as 1kA which can be exceeded fairly easily. in industrial situations toy might well find supplies that can exceed the usual 6-15kA for an MCB!

Even on domestic if you have a RCD it typically can only interrupt around 1.5kA so you must have some means to limit the current to within that range. Typically if you have a MCB in series then its "instant" magnetic trip is faster than a RCD so limits the fault current, but on a fuse or similar you might need to depend on a delay-RCD and to check that your fuse blowing time at that 1.5kA is less than the RCD's delay period so it is not interrupting the full current.

Can I ask your professional opinion. If you were given the EICR we received would you say from what was on the report that the only remedy would be a full rewire?

 

[brianmoooore]

This thread, like many others, is drifting off course, and is becoming a discussion of whether some C3s should have been C2, etc.
The fact is that there were NO C1 or C2 classifications on this EICR, so it should not have been 'unsatisfactory', or require ANY work to make it so.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

This thread, like many others, is drifting off course, and is becoming a discussion of whether some C3s should have been C2, etc.
The fact is that there were NO C1 or C2 classifications on this EICR, so it should not have been 'unsatisfactory', or require ANY work to make it so.

Thank you brianmooore.

May I also ask your professional opinion. If you were given the EICR we received would you say there has been any issues highlighted that would mean that the only remedy was to fully rewire both shop and flat?

 

[pc1966]

Can I ask your professional opinion. If you were given the EICR we received would you say from what was on the report that the only remedy would be a full rewire?

I could not say either way.

It is a poor EICR as I think we all agree, but without more information from the time it is hard to judge.

My own suspicion is it lacked RCDs protection and that ought to have been down as C2, based on the age and various aspects of the EICR (TT earthing, lack of measurements, C3 on schedule), but sadly the best option would have been a 2nd opinion at the time (or some photos, etc, showing the installation).

 

[littlespark]

Ah… I thought those that did the EICR, also did the rewire… now realise it was another firm.

Was the rewiring company given the EICR, or were they just told “can you rewire this for us?”

They would just be doing what they were asked to do.
There may have been questions if someone said there was an unsatisfactory EICR, but the stuff they were pulling out was still ok.

Some customers do ask for work that doesn’t technically need done

Your issue is a misleading EICR, but now, you can’t really get a second opinion if it’s all been “corrected”

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Ah… I thought those that did the EICR, also did the rewire… now realise it was another firm.

Was the rewiring company given the EICR, or were they just told “can you rewire this for us?”

They would just be doing what they were asked to do.
There may have been questions if someone said there was an unsatisfactory EICR, but the stuff they were pulling out was still ok.

Some customers do ask for work that doesn’t technically need done

Your issue is a misleading EICR, but now, you can’t really get a second opinion if it’s all been “corrected”

Sorry if I was unclear. Yes I have no issue with the team doing the rewire. As you say they were instructed to do the work. They did a shoddy job but that is another problem!

My problem is the misleading EICR that was used to convince my parents that the only remedy to their "dangerous" installation was a full rewire when we have all seen that the observations were all C3 and FI.

I think our complaint lies with our letting agent as we pay them to manage our property and our best interests. I was just after a professional opinion on the state of the original EICR and the recommendation of a full rewire.

Brianmooore hit the nail on the head I think. There were zero C1 and C2 therefore the system should not have been deemed unsatisfactory. And even if the missing RCD was down as a C2 it didn't warrant a full rewire. Plus other missing tests which would determine the condition of the wiring

 

[brianmoooore]

Based on that report, I suspect that there are issues with the earthing arrangements that haven't been properly flagged up by the EICR, but there is nothing in that report to suggest that a rewire is required. This is largely because there is next to nothing in the report.

 

[pc1966]

As an aside, there was a discussion elsewhere about if you could have "unsatisfactory" EICR without C2 or worse and the opinions were kind of split. Officially you must have something that is unsatisfactory and can be clearly identified as so on the EICR, but there was also the discussion about an installation where you had so many C3 issues, each of which was not too big on its own, but in total it that led to the belief the whole installation was not acceptably safe.

Sadly none of this helps the OP without any other evidence like photos or similar from the time!

The simple answer is the EICR ought not to have been "unsatisfactory" without C2/C1 (or FI but that is another discussion)

But looking at it my own view is the balance of probabilities says no RCD and on TT & ground floor sockets that should have been a C2. That aspect would only need a CU change, not a rewire.

But if the cable condition, state of accessories, and/or length at the old CU location to fit in to a new one was unsatisfactory then a rewire might be merited. Again, the EICR is poor in that no comments on cable condition or IR values were present, so while it is not unreasonable to think a rewire might have been needed, we don't have evidence one way or another.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

As an aside, there was a discussion elsewhere about if you could have "unsatisfactory" EICR without C2 or worse and the opinions were kind of split. Officially you must have something that is unsatisfactory and can be clearly identified as so on the EICR, but there was also the discussion about an installation where you had so many C3 issues, each of which was not too big on its own, but in total it that led to the belief the whole installation was not acceptably safe.

Sadly none of this helps the OP without any other evidence like photos or similar from the time!

The simple answer is the EICR ought not to have been "unsatisfactory" without C2/C1 (or FI but that is another discussion)

But looking at it my own view is the balance of probabilities says no RCD and on TT & ground floor sockets that should have been a C2. That aspect would only need a CU change, not a rewire.

But if the cable condition, state of accessories, and/or length at the old CU location to fit in to a new one was unsatisfactory then a rewire might be merited. Again, the EICR is poor in that no comments on cable condition or IR values were present, so while it is not unreasonable to think a rewire might have been needed, we don't have evidence one way or another.

Thanks pc1966 I've liked this discussion and learnt a lot.

If we decide to pursue it I'll update this thread

 

[SparkyChick]

The inspector has followed the rules in the regulations.... Page 475 'Notes for the person producing the report'...

"9 Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent
deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and
further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the
code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E."

Whether those items should have had an FI classification or not is another discussion, but FI on anything in an EICR must result in an unsatisfactory result.

Overall that report is a complete waste of time and I (as a NAPIT member) would encourage you to contact NAPIT and discuss this with them.... at the very least the company carrying out the report will be looked at in a bit more detail during their next assessment. As has already been stated, it lacks any meaningful test results, certainly nothing that we can use to judge whether the 'requires a rewire' statement is correct or not.

That being said, anyone quoting for the remedial work should have raised the red flag at seeing the report. If they didn't ask to see it, then they are as guilty as the guy who carried out the EICR for unethical practices as they've just done what was asked rather than looking to see if that was actually the best thing for the client.

 

[pc1966]

The inspector has followed the rules in the regulations.... Page 475 'Notes for the person producing the report'...

"9 Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent
deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and
further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the
code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E."

Whether those items should have had an FI classification or not is another discussion, but FI on anything in an EICR must result in an unsatisfactory result.

That is a good point, thanks for the reminder about 'FI'.

It did have those, even if how justified they were is debatable.

Overall that report is a complete waste of time and I (as a NAPIT member) would encourage you to contact NAPIT and discuss this with them.... at the very least the company carrying out the report will be looked at in a bit more detail during their next assessment. As has already been stated, it lacks any meaningful test results, certainly nothing that we can use to judge whether the 'requires a rewire' statement is correct or not.

Agreed.

That being said, anyone quoting for the remedial work should have raised the red flag at seeing the report. If they didn't ask to see it, then they are as guilty as the guy who carried out the EICR for unethical practices as they've just done what was asked rather than looking to see if that was actually the best thing for the client.

That is possibly harsh!

If you turned up at a property after being told it needed a rewire and found, say, an old Wylex board with plug-in breakers or obsolete CU without RCD, and accessories in a poor state after 30+ years you would probably not doubt it was needed. Yes, once you start you might find cable was actually OK, etc, but at that point a bit committed!

So it might have been a scam and nothing needed doing to the actual cables, or it might have been generally poor so nobody would have seen fault with a phone call saying EICR failed, etc.

 

[SparkyChick]

That is possibly harsh!

If you turned up at a property after being told it needed a rewire and found, say, an old Wylex board with plug-in breakers or obsolete CU without RCD, and accessories in a poor state after 30+ years you would probably not doubt it was needed. Yes, once you start you might find cable was actually OK, etc, but at that point a bit committed!

So it might have been a scam and nothing needed doing, or it might have been generally poor so nobody would have seen fault with a phone call saying EICR failed, etc.

Maybe it is a bit harsh, but my first question whenever I'm asked to quote for a rewire is 'why do you want it doing?'. If they say 'because I've been told by such and such' (or similar or there's a report involved), I ask to see the paperwork and take it from there. Regardless of what the report said (or didn't) I'd probably break out the tester and do a bit of quick investigation (you can get a reasonable idea of the state of the wiring in a relatively short amount of time), take a look in the loft say, check the board out, take a quick look at things like earthing in the lighting circuits, check the ring circuits out maybe. Basically satisfy myself that a rewire is in fact needed. In some cases it's plainly obvious, like the whole place being wired in rubber, but some people seem to suggest it at the drop of a hat... just like they suggest a board change because there's no RCD protection on the upstairs lights and the bathroom is being done out with downlights.

Our first obligation is to our clients, we should be seeking to do what's best for them all the time... yes, we're in business to make money but if that involves doing things that are completely unnecessary just because the client asks us to then we're just not being decent human beings. If you explain the pro's and con's, pricing, potential issues etc. and they still want you to do it then you've done your part to try and make sure they aren't being ripped off.

Unfortunately in this case it's impossible for any of us to say because there's nothing to refer back to regarding the original installation. The report is a waste of time and gives no real indication as to why they deemed it to need a rewire.

One of the topics I discussed with my NAPIT area engineer during my assessment this year was this very subject and he's desperately trying to get funding so he can actively spend more time investigating companies that have complaints made against them... and here we're talking random site vists. I hate hearing about companies that are members of NAPIT doing stuff like this because as with so many other things, we all end up being tarred with the same brush. The other thing that needs to change is for the schemes to allow people other than clients to report members. I keep coming across work carried out by a particular spark and it's bad, everytime... the NICEIC don't give a ---- because I'm not the client.

We all make mistakes, we all have off days and I'm not claiming to be perfect... far from it... but I'd rather talk myself out of a big job and have a clear conscience than knowingly undertake work that simply wasn't required just because the client asked me to.

 

[UNG]

While the EICR does lack a lot the fact that the premises have now been rewired and there is nothing to compare it too makes it difficult to actually form any opinion of how good, bad or indifferent the installation was at the time. A schedule of tests with only 4 circuits listed would suggest separate CU's for the shop and flat if that is the case why only one schedule

While you are looking to possible legal redress I think that may be difficult without the inspectable evidence or a second EICR to support it
The actual timeline isn't clear as to whether the premises were occupied with the new tenant or not when the letting agent pressurised your parents with the 30 days to complete the remedial works

This is definitely a case of hindsight being a wonderful thing and lessons being learned

 

[cliffed]

That report is a disgrace, there are no circuit readings anywhere.
It looks like there’s no MBPC which would be a C2, even though a 10mm cable been indicated.
2.5mm MEC, which also would be a C2, seems to be a manufactured EICR..
Hope you get your compensation, I would be livid…good luck

 

[ferg]

As a possibility, The report looks like someone just gave up half way through.
This happens sometimes where so many faults are found a stop is put to the EICR and a recommendation for a rewire is made.
However this is not indicated on the report, was it made in writing or verbally?
As mentioned above it doesn't look like the flat is on the report either.