a couple EICR question from a home owner

[ericmark]

It seems an escape route is a dedicated escape route, so no carpet, or any other decoration which can burn. So in most homes the stairs is not classed as an escape route.

Any enclosure must retain heat, and any MCB will produce heat, so the inspector must decide if the air flow is enough, but since the maximum supply to a consumer unit is 125 amp, after that it is a distribution unit not a consumer unit, it would seem unlikely enough heat can build up to cause problems.

Today we look at the types of RCD, AC, A, F, B etc. But that has not always been the case, also we in the main talk about 30 mA RCD's, again that was not always the case, 100 mA was common.

We did have a code 4 which said it does not comply with current edition, but this has been dropped, we have C1 = dangerous, C2 = potential dangerous, and C3 recommended, plus FI = further investigation etc. But the one which causes the problem is C2, lets face it 230 volt electricity is potential dangerous. The inspector must highlight faults, so a type AC RCD feeding a device likely to produce DC is a fault, which would include every central heating system with a three port valve, but we all know that has been the case since we first started fitting RCD's, and the regulations are not retrospective.

So most is left to the inspectors discretion. Missing blank in a CU is a code C1 in most cases, but a blank you can remove without a key or tool in the main is ignored, but a pedantic inspector could code it as a C2.

The Pembrokeshire trading standard EICR court case was an eye opener, I was under the impression the EICR was an agreement between the person commissioning it, and the inspector, so the person commissioning it is free to ask for only the extension, or only the main house, or only the garage etc. And can say inspect ¼ of devices unless fault found, or inspect all, etc.

Once the EICR is handed to a third party it muddies the water, as that third party may be unaware of the limitations, this is why the local authority building control (LABC) if they want an EICR before issuing the completion certificate commission the inspector themselves, even if the owner pays.

It was assumed if a third party did not feel the report reflected the state of the electrics, he would need to take seller to court, who in turn would take the inspector to court, but the Pembrokeshire trading standard EICR court case short circuited that, and they took the inspector to court, however it was for not showing a warranty of skill, and he admitted he had not done the job correct, had he argued the case, it may have been a different outcome.

It is also rumoured the buyer was a council worker, and had pulled strings?

But although a C1 is reasonable cut and dried, the C2 and C3 codes can be swapped around and no one can really say either is right or wrong, I have listened to inspectors doing commercial work say how lack of SPD is a C2, although this was before the latest edition clarified things a bit.

Personally I feel if it was OK in 1980, unless some thing has changed, it is still OK, so we need to show something has changed, be that use of LED bulbs, removal of bathroom bonding, fitting of solar panels, or EV charging points, some thing needs to have changed.

The question is if nothing has changed since it was installed, and it fails, can you claim from the person who installed it? Since we should get an EICR done at least every 10 years, anything older than 10 years I would personally say no, but we have not been fitting solar panels for that long.

So in reference to

A solar inverter cannot share an RCD with any other circuits, so if an RCD is required, it must be for the inverter only.
It also cannot share an MCB with any other circuits or devices, but that's far less likely than it being on a shared RCD.

Whether it actually needs an RCD depends on how the circuit is installed and what the inverter contains.

Could the home owner require the person who fitted the solar inverter to return and correct the errors, if there are errors FOC? If not why not? The "if an RCD is required" is the big question. I fitted RCD protection to my old house and this one, but it was not required, I fitted it because I wanted the protection.

As to "It also cannot share an MCB" not so sure, it must have a dedicated MCB, but if for example a outbuilding was supplied with a 70 amp MCB, to a consumer unit which then had a dedicated MCB for the solar panels, then clearly it would be sharing the 70 amp MCB. And is clearly shares the DNO fuse.

I know what @flameport means, and in the main he is correct, but a sweeping statement like that can lead one astray. And it does need some common sense.

We are always told it needs a single point of isolation, but in the early days of economy 7 I saw many homes with two fuse boxes one main one and one off peak with no single point of isolation, so one has to be careful quoting rules, as I don't now have any regulation books from 20th century, so could not check if I wanted to.

 

[JohnW2]

Not sure you can say 'nothing wrong' exactly. If say a plastic CU is in a wooden enclosure, which is underneath a wooden staircase, and it's the only exit from the bedroom(s) it would at the very least be marked as a C3.

Well, although I'm never going to be the person doing an EICR, I don't think I would.

For a start, wood being wood, do I take it that you would give a plastic CU under the stairs a C3 even if it wasn't in a wooden enclosure (which I imagine would be very rare for an 'under stairs CU, anyway). If so, the 'wooden enclosure' is presumable irrelevant?

Don't forget that, whether in a wooden enclosure or not, the (in my option 'daft', as well as unnecessary) reg does not require a metal CU to provide any fire containment - so a fire within it could ignite a wooden staircase even if it wasn't in a wooden enclosure.

Kind Regards, John

 

[seasickstevie]

You're right john about the irrelevance of a wooden enclosure under a wooden staircase. Perhaps I should've said "the lack of a non-combustible enclosure".
This leaves the staircase unprotected.

Although Eric says that a staircase in a dwelling is not classed as an 'escape route', I seem to recall clearly being told when doing the 2391 that it was considered an escape route ... can't really see why it wouldn't.

When replying to the op's description of the old 1970s metal consumer unit, I inadvertently referred to it as 'likely an MK', I did of-course mean Wylex. These were quite typical in the late 60s/70s. I put several in myself in the 70s, and suspect that's what he's got.

Unless, of course, it was non-combustible.

The plastic fuse covers on the old metal Wylex boards I'm sure would not be compliant today (unless within a non-combustible blah blah blah).
I can't imagine them being classed as 'non-combustible'. Don't think I've come across any similar new CUs in recent times with plastic OCPD covers.
If there are any on the market today with plastic OCPD covers, I can't see how they can be compliant (unless within ...).

Be interesting to hear how the op has got on since with his report, and how he's dealt with recommendations etc.

 

[JohnW2]

You're right john about the irrelevance of a wooden enclosure under a wooden staircase. Perhaps I should've said "the lack of a non-combustible enclosure".
This leaves the staircase unprotected.

Fair enough - but, as I pointed out, the way the (in my opinion, 'silly', in several senses!) regulation is written, the staircase could still be 'unprotected', even with a currently-compliant 'metal CU' - i.e. one whose case was full of ~12mm holes (other than on top surface) but with what little material was left being ferrous metal (i.e. no 'fire containment').

That aside, one cannot deny a theoretical risk of having any CU under stairs which does not provide a reasonable degree of 'fire containment', but there must be millions of them out there, and (despite the views of LFB) I imagine that house fires originating in CUs are actually extremely rare.

The plastic fuse covers on the old metal Wylex boards I'm sure would not be compliant today (unless within a non-combustible blah blah blah).
I can't imagine them being classed as 'non-combustible'. Don't think I've come across any similar new CUs in recent times with plastic OCPD covers.
If there are any on the market today with plastic OCPD covers, I can't see how they can be compliant (unless within ...).

Given that 'non-combustible' is impossible, it's difficult to know what materials would/might/should be considered acceptable. It presumably should have said something like "reasonably/acceptably combustion-resistant" (with definitions or, at least, multiple examples). I would have expected that there are a good few non-metal materials which probably should be 'acceptable' - for example, it is extremely difficult to 'set on fire' (I've tried!) the urea-formaldehyde resins widely used for electrical accessories!

Kind Regards, John