Discuss Unsatisfactory EICR with C2 and FI, advise needed in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Just to add a couple of minor but potentially significant things on the EICR report itself.

It's been listed as further inspection required after 3 years or change of tenant. Assuming this report is to confirm suitability for renting, then a 5 year period is required. For a property of the age stated, I can't see any reason why the report wasn't given for 5 years, so it may be worth chasing that up, otherwise you would in theory have to do another one in 3 years at additional cost.

There are also a couple of niggling errors on Page 3, which don't really impact the safety, but suggest either inexperience or sloppy filling out of forms.

Specifically, U in nature of supply characteristics should be N/A, not 240 - for a single phase supply.

If the main switch is actually a 60947-3 as listed, then it does not have a fuse/device rating, so that should be N/A.

The certificate also seems to suggest that there is either no room containing a bath or shower, or no electrical circuits in it, since he has put N/A for additional protection by RCD (6.1)!

My guess is that if this is a dual RCD board, that should be ticked, so not a significant issue, but one that stands out to anyone experienced looking at the form.

Re bonding, there are some different views on how to approach it, but I'd be surprised (but not astonished) if a new build from 2011 wasn't bonded if necessary (unless things have been moved since).

If it's not plastic pipework coming in, then bonding can often be verified by wander lead testing, though to be fair if the end of the bonding cable isn't accessible it isn't always possible to rule out earthing via a boiler manifold or similar, so there is an argument that C2 might be appropriate where the reading is inconclusive.

Having mentioned boiler - he mentions that bonding required to "gas and water pipes at boiler", which is a little confusing.

If the services enter in metallic pipes then they do need to be bonded, but at the appropriate isolation points (or as near as practicable). I guess they could both be by the boiler.

I wonder if he is talking about cross bonding at the boiler, which some plumbers like to do but is not necessary.

Either way I can't really see how £300 was reached as a price for remedials, so I would definitely be getting other quotes for that. I would also ask him to reissue the certificate with a 5 year life, or give a good reason why not.
 
Its possible the Zs result could still be satisfactory for the circuit protective device used so I would probably give it a C3 or FI but we all have different views on these things.
I agree with the C3, but FI is not appropriate in my opinion, because a faulty condition has been identified, no further investigation needed for the purpose of the EICR. Fault finding to identify the cause of the C3 is a different matter, and does not come under the heading of FI.
 
Its possible the Zs result could still be satisfactory for the circuit protective device used so I would probably give it a C3 or FI but we all have different views on these things.
It's definitely not clear which reading is being talked about, but none of the R1+R2 listed in the schedule are high enough to cause an issue with the OCPD.

The kitchen socket one is higher than might be expected by the r1+r2/4 method, but not high enough to cause an issue with the OPCD.

The downstairs sockets seem to have a higher R1+R2 than Zs, but that is quite likely due to a poor switch and/or poor testing.

But even with the calculated method of Zs, none of those readings would breach the maximum permitted, so although they may be the sign of something to be investigated in an ideal world, I don't see that they should prevent a satisfactory EICR.
 
BS 60898 is an MCB, BS 61009 would be an RCBO

The RCD test button seems to be functional on all circuits except the upstairs sockets so is it a dual RCD board
Oops looks like I worded it the wrong way around when I was leaving this morning, yeah, I was trying to point out the inconsistencies, the same device can't have rcd in some cases and not in others.

Not sure about duel as the way the circuits are laid out in the report doesn't leave space for the rcd.
 
Thank you all for your very helpful reply. I got a trustworthy electrician to fix the minor issues. The electrician said that they repeated mention same thing multiple times as C2. The 'high' R1+R2 reading in their report appears to be normal. The electrician only charged me £50 and provided a detailed description of the problem of the EICR and the remedial he did. Only a couple of clamps were required.

I will refuse to pay the company who did the EICR. Bad trademan! Will blacklist it.
 
Thank you all for your very helpful reply. I got a trustworthy electrician to fix the minor issues. The electrician said that they repeated mention same thing multiple times as C2. The 'high' R1+R2 reading in their report appears to be normal. The electrician only charged me £50 and provided a detailed description of the problem of the EICR and the remedial he did. Only a couple of clamps were required.

I will refuse to pay the company who did the EICR. Bad trademan! Will blacklist it.
What grounds do you have for a refusal to pay?

Incidentally a high (R1+R2) result is indicative of a loose connection and shouldn't be ignored (if it was accurately listed as a defect within the installation).
 
Thank you all for your very helpful reply. I got a trustworthy electrician to fix the minor issues. The electrician said that they repeated mention same thing multiple times as C2. The 'high' R1+R2 reading in their report appears to be normal. The electrician only charged me £50 and provided a detailed description of the problem of the EICR and the remedial he did. Only a couple of clamps were required.

I will refuse to pay the company who did the EICR. Bad trademan! Will blacklist it.

EICR opinions are like 'bottoms' - everybody has one
You ask 2 companies you will get at least 2 opinions

You have contracted the company to carry out an EICR, you have a legal obligation to pay them.

The EICR you posted looks unimpressive, but it is stil an EICR, You need to pay.

You now have a company that you know not to use again .
 
If they're part of a CPS (NICEIC etc) you can try thier complaints process, if thry aren't in one then go to trading standards but both options would require you to pay for the work otherwise no transaction has taken place and so nothing would be done.
 

Reply to Unsatisfactory EICR with C2 and FI, advise needed in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock