Thoughts on recent EICR welcomed

[Sparks82]

My father In law is selling his property and had a EICR done recently requested by the buyers.
I thought the report was not the best quality with some overly harsh codes, codes missing, information missing or conflicting information was wondering what you guys thought and if you agreed.
I have included some some photos of the report.
The main things I noticed were-
1-No information for number of points
2-Some circuits have r1&r2 readings others are blank without a reading or LIM in the boxes
3-no readings or LIM in the boxes for L-N insulation
4-for one of the rings it has 2000 for the 3 end to end continuity readings
5-main earth written as 16mm is 6mm
6-one of the socket circuit zs is above the max no code or comment on it
7-end to end reading between L-N above 0.05 no comment or code
8-given a code 1 for 1 mm cable on 15amp then given a code 2 for the same thing with 2.5 on 30amp
9-code 2 for cpcs not sleeved at light switches, I would consider that a C3
10-FI for kitchen sockets unable to unscrew and check due to grout which I thought would be a LIM or c3
11-on the inspection ticked identification of conducts but put a code 2 for cpcs not sleeved
12-on the inspection given a c2 for sockets and rcds for additional protection then on another part given c3 for rcds and additional protection at DB
13-cpcs for 6mm twin and earth recorded as 4mm
14-given a C2 for the oven incorrectly fused requires 13amp fuse, on the oven written total watts 4990
Their were other bits on the inspection which conflict each other.
I’m going to carry out any repairs for him,
he was was told by the agent it would be £1,000 for the repairs,
Which seems abit steep considering it’s basically a days work, a board change, adding some sleeving, changing a couple of pendants, changing a box and altering the connections behind the oven.
Would be interested your thoughts

 

[timhoward]

It's not the worst I've seen, but there are certainly a few interesting things.
A Zs lower than R1+R2.
I'm assuming 2000 ohms should be >2000ohms for kitchen sockets implying open circuit, maybe that is another reason for FI.
I simply don't believe the IR test readings!
To be fair it does look as though some valid faults have been uncovered by someone who tried to be thorough.
(It would be interesting to see the supply characteristics page)

 

[Dartlec]

The first thought is that if the buyers wanted an EICR done, then they should be covering the cost of any remedials (or decide if they want to buy the property or not based on the outcome).

The chances are with a property with a fusebox that old, they may want to add sockets, alter things, even completely redo the kitchen, in which case they might end up having to rip out what's just been corrected in any case!

Seems to be a common thing by agents now pushing EICRs for sellers when it's not a legal requirement - and a lot (not all) of agent directed EICRs seem to be problematic based on the ones we've seen on this board over the last 6 months....

 

[GBDamo]

Those LIMs should be listed as pre-agreed limitations.

LN-E only IR testing is common as is no damage to decoration but should be pre-agreed limitations.

 

[Dartlec]

In relation to your points:

1. Number of points isn't actually required - many forms tend not to include them now because there its so hard to be sure you've spotted everything in a occupied property.
2. Agree that LIM in there would be better, though if Zs has been taken on an EICR, R1&R2 isn't always essential
3. Looks like an overprinted certificate rather than a computer generated one? In which case maybe their software isn't the best - though that's a minor issue I'd say.. In an occupied property L-N insulation is almost always impossible, and L&N-E is usually the sensible one to do.
4. My guess is that 2000 is the reading on the meter for open circuit (probably >2000 actually), in which case that would mean no continuity...
5. Is there an MET with 16mm to the board, and a smaller TN-S 6mm perhaps? If not then it's clearly a typo - but not something you want to get wrong on a supposedly professional report...
6. The figure on the form may be based on the 80% rule, looking at it - so it may well still just be within the limits, though cba to look it up... It should probably be noted or commented on somewhere though
7. End to end being within 0.08 is probably within the margin of error of holding crocodile clips, so probably the least to worry about. It does suggest a reading was taken at least I guess!
8. C1 is nonsense - assuming there wasn't live parts actually accessible. C2 might be right, depending on the actual likely load - Be interested to see whether they just eyeballed it and how accurate they were - though it does show at least an attention to detail on the things that can go wrong with older boards...
9. I agree that unsleeved CPCs are at worst a C3 - in fact if I recall, the Best Practise Guide says no code for them, as it's not a danger...
10. If the grouted in fittings can be tested at a socket then I'd say C3 at worst is fine, and if not possibly a LIM if it could be confirmed that there was a continuous earth to the cooker. Basically as long as they can confirm polarity on that circuit then I'd say C3, but if it can't then FI is maybe warranted.
11. Identification of conductors is more to do with Line and Neutral being correctly identified - a bare cpc is fairly easy to identify, even without the sleeving
12. It's not unreasonable to give C3 and C2 for various combinations of lack of RCD. Generally the lack of an RCD to sockets is only a C2 when it's sockets that may supply portable equipment outside, and for any circuits in a bathroom if there is no supplementary bonding - everything else could reasonably be a C3 following the guidance.
13. That's a clear error - can happen, but again not ideal when you spot things like that on a professional report. A sign of poor proof reading, if nothing else...
14. Not entirely sure what their point is here - it may be that they are raising lack of isolation via a switch, though a 13A would clearly be wrong if the oven is 5kW as you say. That appears to be a spurious error.

It's actually not a 'bad' report compared to some, in that some work appears to have been done and some issues have been picked up. I wonder if its a case of a good tester, but a bad report writer?

In terms of what to do, I would either get the buyer to pay if they want the work done (or negotiated off the price). I certainly wouldn't put £1000 into a property when it's quite possible that the buyers will end up doing things to it themselves anyway... £1000 does sound steep in any case.

 

[Dartlec]

It's not the worst I've seen, but there are certainly a few interesting things.
A Zs lower than R1+R2.
I'm assuming 2000 ohms should be >2000ohms for kitchen sockets implying open circuit, maybe that is another reason for FI.
I simply don't believe the IR test readings!
To be fair it does look as though some valid faults have been uncovered by someone who tried to be thorough.
(It would be interesting to see the supply characteristics page)

I'll eat my kneepads if those IR tests were what came from the meter - assuming the property was occupied at the time and not empty and with all appliances removed....

Are there even any that display 1000? Meggers display >999.

 

[UNG]

Strange that no meter serial numbers are listed or type of meters used detailed, and PFC N/Aed.
How does item 4.9 get a tick when there are no MCB's or RCD's
It certainly lacks some detail in parts and hasn't been proof read before issue
It would be interesting to know the age of this installation in relation to the cable sizes

 

[UNG]

I'll eat my kneepads if those IR tests were what came from the meter - assuming the property was occupied at the time and not empty and with all appliances removed....

Are there even any that display 1000? Meggers display >999.

My Metrel shows >1000

 

[Dartlec]

The breaking capacity of 3036 fusewire is not 6kA either. Easycert prefills it at 4, though google seems to think it's 2kA?

 

[Dartlec]

I admire the balls of any tester sticking 500V up an 'unknown circuit' too ?

 

[UNG]

I admire the balls of any tester sticking 500V up an 'unknown circuit' too ?

Your assuming what is written on the cert actually happened

 

[westward10]

I admire the balls of any tester sticking 500V up an 'unknown circuit' too ?

I stick 500v up any circuit.

 

[timhoward]

I stick 500v up any circuit.

and follow the smoke signal...! ;-)

 

[timhoward]

I'll eat my kneepads if those IR tests were what came from the meter - assuming the property was occupied at the time and not empty and with all appliances removed....

Are there even any that display 1000? Meggers display >999.

Kewtech shows >2000. But yeah, how many installations of that age would have every circuit in perfect condition - I just don't buy it!

 

[Sparks82]

I had a look today and most of the faults listed are correct.
I just found the details in the report quite sloppy or incorrect for example.
1-circuit 1 had 2000 written in end to end continuity box when looking it was clearly 2 radials
2-circuit 3 had 2.5 cable when it was a 6mm and 1mm at the board
Other parts contradicting himself in the inspection boxes or codes being wrong.
The price for the repairs also annoyed me
Since people that didn’t know better would just get it done and pay it

 

[Sparks82]

Its original wiring probably from 60s or70s

 

[westward10]

and follow the smoke signal...! ;-)

Never going to do any harm people twinkle toe too much with IR testing. I have been 500v testing for the last thirty odd years only resorting to 250 if I get odd readings.

 

[loz2754]

In relation to your points:

1. Number of points isn't actually required - many forms tend not to include them now because there its so hard to be sure you've spotted everything in a occupied property.
2. Agree that LIM in there would be better, though if Zs has been taken on an EICR, R1&R2 isn't always essential
3. Looks like an overprinted certificate rather than a computer generated one? In which case maybe their software isn't the best - though that's a minor issue I'd say.. In an occupied property L-N insulation is almost always impossible, and L&N-E is usually the sensible one to do.
4. My guess is that 2000 is the reading on the meter for open circuit (probably >2000 actually), in which case that would mean no continuity...
5. Is there an MET with 16mm to the board, and a smaller TN-S 6mm perhaps? If not then it's clearly a typo - but not something you want to get wrong on a supposedly professional report...
6. The figure on the form may be based on the 80% rule, looking at it - so it may well still just be within the limits, though cba to look it up... It should probably be noted or commented on somewhere though
7. End to end being within 0.08 is probably within the margin of error of holding crocodile clips, so probably the least to worry about. It does suggest a reading was taken at least I guess!
8. C1 is nonsense - assuming there wasn't live parts actually accessible. C2 might be right, depending on the actual likely load - Be interested to see whether they just eyeballed it and how accurate they were - though it does show at least an attention to detail on the things that can go wrong with older boards...
9. I agree that unsleeved CPCs are at worst a C3 - in fact if I recall, the Best Practise Guide says no code for them, as it's not a danger...
10. If the grouted in fittings can be tested at a socket then I'd say C3 at worst is fine, and if not possibly a LIM if it could be confirmed that there was a continuous earth to the cooker. Basically as long as they can confirm polarity on that circuit then I'd say C3, but if it can't then FI is maybe warranted.
11. Identification of conductors is more to do with Line and Neutral being correctly identified - a bare cpc is fairly easy to identify, even without the sleeving
12. It's not unreasonable to give C3 and C2 for various combinations of lack of RCD. Generally the lack of an RCD to sockets is only a C2 when it's sockets that may supply portable equipment outside, and for any circuits in a bathroom if there is no supplementary bonding - everything else could reasonably be a C3 following the guidance.
13. That's a clear error - can happen, but again not ideal when you spot things like that on a professional report. A sign of poor proof reading, if nothing else...
14. Not entirely sure what their point is here - it may be that they are raising lack of isolation via a switch, though a 13A would clearly be wrong if the oven is 5kW as you say. That appears to be a spurious error.

It's actually not a 'bad' report compared to some, in that some work appears to have been done and some issues have been picked up. I wonder if its a case of a good tester, but a bad report writer?

In terms of what to do, I would either get the buyer to pay if they want the work done (or negotiated off the price). I certainly wouldn't put £1000 into a property when it's quite possible that the buyers will end up doing things to it themselves anyway... £1000 does sound steep in any case.

I agree with everything dartlec says.
Saved me a job of typing it all out!

 

[Sparks82]

1.I agree it’s not assentail I just think if theirs a box for it on the form it’s a bit lazy to leave it blank. Especially as it’s not a particularly big house or that cluttered with furnitures
2. I agree I don’t normally records r1&r2 reading on a EICR. Was the fact he put readings down for some some circuits but left others blank. I think you should either fill them all out or put LIM for them all
4.he might mean open circuit, but it should be blank since it’s a radial and I’m the board u can see two cables, one going through the back and another coming out the top of the board and into a socket next to the board
5.no the cables go straight into the tncs earth block with 6mm and 10mm for bonding coming out of it
8.loads not very high about 6 pendants, bathroom light, 1 or 2 lights in the kitchen and door bell transformer
10.sockets can be plugged into to confirm polarity and earthing, cooker theirs a junction box behind the oven to confirm polarity and earthing. He has zs and r1&r2 readings for cooker, zs reading for sockets and both had polarity box ticked.
which is why I would say it should c3 or lim instead of FI.
also I noticed their was a hole in the side of the cooker switch which he must of done trying to get it if the wall
12.I agree with what you said but he put c2 lack of rcds on sockets, c2 rcds in bathroom ,c3 for cables hidden in wall then c3 for overall additional rcd protection at db which I thought should be c2.
He also put c2 for rcd offering fault protection which is either wrong cause it’s tncs or because of the high zs on the sockets but then it should be noted in the codes
14.what he’s saying is the oven should be fused down to 13 amp not feed directly from the cooker circuit but it doesn’t come with pre fixed flex, is feed with 6mm cable and on top of the oven it clearly states total wattage 4990.
If that was the only fault then the installation would be failed just because of that which I think is wrong

 

[Risteard]

I admire the balls of any tester sticking 500V up an 'unknown circuit' too ?

What's the risk if live conductors are connected together?