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
Appears that having an > symbol included on many of the readings would have made things a bit clearer. Are they the over printed certificate type?
Not sure if 7671 says anything about blank boxes actually, though I guess they suggest no reading was taken - personally I do fill in N/A, LIM or -- on most of them just because it looks better imo.
I guess the socket circuit would be a C2 either for being radials on 30A fuse, or a RFC with no continuity - that one might well be a fair FI if it wasn't clear, though also a safe C2.
Were there single insulated cables at the cooker point? - If it was possible to test polarity and earthing from the front of the points, then I'd agree that FI seems unjustified.
The RCD for fault protection box, along with the alternative supply arrangement boxes is one of the first places to look to see if someone knows what they are actually filling out.
The pendants is another interesting one - use of unsheathed flex is down as a C3 in BPG4, whereas I've always replaced them when I've seen them before and would probably veer towards C2. Not sure what the rational behind that is where unsheathed flex would be a C2 anywhere else... (perhaps they think it's considered not accessible to touch)
Still end up with 4 or so C2s I guess, and noone ever looks past the first page anyway.
Out of Interest, was this a fully registered Approved Contractor or equivalent? The quality of reports I've seen from people who are in theory at a higher level than me has been a disappointment over the last year or so - makes me feel better about the quality of the ones I issue though at least (some of which will no doubt have mistakes in).
Not sure what the solution is, only a strong belief that the 'powers that be' aren't competent enough to find it!
