Second opinion please

[me2]

Hello everyone,
I was wake by a friend to have a look at an Eicr that was done on his rental property .
The Eicr says I quote :
"Due to the c2 codes listed in section k , this report is unsatisfactory. The old consumer unit has type 4 (D) breakers where make it impossible to achieve test results.
So far no problems.
However when I had a look at the " Old "cu it turned out to be metal enclosure Mk split load cu , populated with B type MCB .
Am I missing something ?or was the author of the report trying to " sell" a new Cu as recommended later in report?

Thoughts anyone ?

 

[Octopus]

Your "friend" needs to address these concerns in writing to the person who produced the report......................... and see what they say.

 

[ruston]

As above ,and if you are certain that the fitted MCB's would have achieved disconnection times there does seem to be an attempt to mislead...

 

[me2]

Thanks guys, that's what I was thinking .I just wanted to be sure . I will try to upload a picture of the cu later on .
I just wonder if the spark needs to go specsaver and confused the B with a D on the Mcbs marking.

 

[westward10]

MK have never produced type 4 mcbs, not sure why you have D in brackets because they are different and MK never produced these either. What it means difficult to achieve test results I have no idea. Are you sure the board has not been changed since the EICR.

 

[Richard Burns]

It does sound as if there is an error in the report.
Type 4 breakers would be uncommon in a domestic property, but possible. I assume that there are not two consumer units in the property and you have only seen one of them (this would be obvious from the report test results).
I cannot see how type B MK MCBs could be confused for type 4.

 

[westward10]

Thanks guys, that's what I was thinking .I just wanted to be sure . I will try to upload a picture of the cu later on .
I just wonder if the spark needs to go specsaver and confused the B with a D on the Mcbs marking.

If he confused a B with a D then he should steer well clear of EICRs as MK never produced a D anyway. He sounds totally incompetent .

 

[me2]

There is only one cu in property.
The D is in bracket as quoted in report .
As for being incompetent and steering clear of Eicr , on the report he is described as a qualified supervisor and judging by the name of the company it seems to be specialised in inspection and testing , so I am not sure.Thanks again for all the replies.

 

[westward10]

Trust me he is not competent.

 

[PEG]

Hello everyone,
I was wake by a friend to have a look at an Eicr that was done on his rental property .
The Eicr says I quote :
"Due to the c2 codes listed in section k , this report is unsatisfactory. The old consumer unit has type 4 (D) breakers where make it impossible to achieve test results.
So far no problems.
However when I had a look at the " Old "cu it turned out to be metal enclosure Mk split load cu , populated with B type MCB .
Am I missing something ?or was the author of the report trying to " sell" a new Cu as recommended later in report?

Thoughts anyone ?

If someone i thought well enough of,to sleep next to,woke me to discuss MCB characteristics...i would having a test and inspect of our relationship

 

[Wilko]

"Now, which place was that - oh, that data set will do - I'll use it, no one reads the reports anyway ... "

 

[Raeb]

"Now, which place was that - oh, that data set will do - I'll use it, no one reads the reports anyway ... "

I have seen that done a few times.