Basic installation testing with minimal disturbance

[SimonH2]

BAS - there is no irrational fear, no fear at all - that's all in your imagination. There is an appropriate consideration of risk which you would do well to consider yourself.

At what point do you consider a full EIC becomes unreasonable ? Every week or two (holiday cottage) ? Every day/couple of days (hotel/B&B) ?
Do you really consider it to be good practice to dismantle a working system potentially hundred of times a year ? How many times do you flex a non-flex cable before you consider it to be unreasonable ? After all, we use flex cables in moving applications for a reason.
If it's considered 'dangerous' (your opinion) to not do a full EIC after (say) 6 months with one tenant, then surely it has to be much more dangerous to not do one after the same 6 months with perhaps a dozen or two different tenants (holiday cottage) or potentially a hundred or more (hotel).

Now, if you actually have anything positive to contribute, other than ignoring risk and making the frankly ludicrous and dangerous assumption that an unnecessary level of dismantling introduces zero risk of introducing a fault that wasn't previously there, then we're all ears. After all, if working on electrical system is so risk free, why bother with testing at all - if the installer has wired all the sockets right (as he will have done according to your risk assessment) then there's little point in a big chunk of the tests being done at all, no need to test new RCD/RCBOs as they'll have been tested at the factory, etc, etc.

Others have managed to temper their "enthusiasm for a full EIC" with actual positive comments. You, sadly as usual, have presented nothing but negative comments and personal abuse which was not warranted.

 

[Adam_151]

I don't think the overall idea SimonH puts across is too much of an issue, although there are definatly things he hasn't quite grasped, and would not be fully competant to go out take on EICR work. However it sounds to be like he wants to test his rental property to get some experience testing, and give it a quick once over before reletting, and I cant see an issue with that. Its a new installation with records available... theres not a lot that an EICR could tell you, that a quick visual checking for smashed accessories and any evidence of tampering wouldn't tell you.

If my experience of what the rental market is like is much to go by (having seen a few of a the places aquaintances have rented) then wooden framed wylex boards, no earth in lighting with metal fittings and switches everywhere and no bonding are the order of the day. So a landlord who takes electrical safety seriously is a refreshing change.

Remember that GN3 also tells us that we should avoid unnecessary dismantling.... a PIR/EICR is not a form filling challenge and time taken pulling stuff apart might be better spend looking around the installation

 

[shedbang]

If my experience of what the rental market is like is much to go by (having seen a few of a the places aquaintances have rented) then wooden framed wylex boards, no earth in lighting with metal fittings and switches everywhere and no bonding are the order of the day. So a landlord who takes electrical safety seriously is a refreshing change.

An excellent post sir, complimenting your practical advice so far in the thread. At odds with the usual carping from the usual suspect and therefore improving the environment of the forum in general and most definitely welcome.

 

[EFLImpudence]

230/Zs is not a 'product', it's a quotient

Thanks again.

I don't remember that at all.

 

[JohnW2]

230/Zs is not a 'product', it's a quotient

Thanks again. I don't remember that at all.

You're welcome.

A + B Sum
A - B Difference
A x B Product
A / B Quotient

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

[another wretched duplicate deleted!]

 

[securespark]

Simon:

Fear or risk, whatever you call it, it's irrational.

Just do it properly.

Proper testing carried out properly by a competent person is not risky.

You need to consider your tenants. They are relying on you as landlord to maintain their dwelling in a safe condition.

You think it is safe now, but there is no way you can tell this until you have had the EICR done.

Believe me, I have carried out many reports where landlords have had a pass previously and I have failed the installation on several (serious)counts. These have mainly been due to tampering but sometimes due to points missed in the previous inspection.

 

[SimonH2]

I don't think the overall idea SimonH puts across is too much of an issue

Thanks

although there are definatly things he hasn't quite grasped

I agree, that's why I asked. Contrary to what I suspect a few people think, I didn't start this thread to stir up a hornets' nest.

, and would not be fully competant to go out take on EICR work.

Got plans to do so. If it did, then I'd be doing it properly and taking courses etc.

However it sounds to be like he wants to test his rental property to get some experience testing, and give it a quick once over before reletting

The latter really.

Its a new installation with records available... theres not a lot that an EICR could tell you, that a quick visual checking for smashed accessories and any evidence of tampering wouldn't tell you.

More or less what I've done in the past - have a good look round for evidence of fiddling, easily done while also checking the rest of the property for condition. Now it's got RCDs then there's the test buttons to check as well. It should be fairly easy to spot if any fittings have been off the wall - in spite of specific instructions to the contrary, the previous tenant painted them all to the wall so any removal will show as cracks in the paint

I didn't buy the MFT specifically for this, but it was definitely on my mind when I bought it. I do have access to some other test gear (most specifically a quite decent Megger), but nothing like the MFT will do.

If my experience of what the rental market is like is much to go by (having seen a few of a the places aquaintances have rented) then wooden framed wylex boards, no earth in lighting with metal fittings and switches everywhere and no bonding are the order of the day. So a landlord who takes electrical safety seriously is a refreshing change.

I have a different view, or so it seems, from a certain proportion of landlords. It's certainly been "a learning experience" figuring out why some regulations are there - mostly for things where I find myself thinking "would any reasonable landlord even consider that " But then I've been careful to stay in a market area where there's, trying to be polite, a better type of tenant - my current tenants have been the first to be any real problem and they should be leaving soon.

Like a lot of things, the majority of us get tarred with the actions of the few unscrupulous types. My manager rents, as does his sister, and so I've got a few stories from their viewpoint - and again I find myself wondering how/why a landlord could have such an attitude. Also useful as I can ask "what if ..." type questions and get an opinion from the tenant side of things.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You, sadly as usual, have presented nothing but negative comments

Because there is nothing positive to say about your ideas.

and personal abuse which was not warranted.

Wrong.

And it's getting more warranted the more you persist.

 

[sparkybird]

Sorry to jump in, but getting an EICR at change of tenancy is a point well raised. This is recommended by the IET. You might want to check your insurance policy and/or letting agent to see if it is a condition.

Having only 1 tenant in a period of 6 months is no guarantee that there will be less problems/fiddling than having 10 tenants.

Finally, just because others do not take the safety of tenants seriously doesn't mean you should lower yourself to their level...

Why not do your testing and then get a sparks to do the EICR - that way everything will be covered and you can compare your findings to his/hers

Good luck

SB

 

[SimonH2]

and personal abuse which was not warranted.

Wrong.

And it's getting more warranted the more you persist.

Personal abuse is not warranted. You may disagree with my viewpoint, but if you are incapable of accepting that others have a different view from yours without resorting to personal abuse and insults then that says more about you than it does about me.

You'll have to disconnect the white flying leads on the RCBOs when doing your global IR (and remember to tie L&N together and test to earth, not separately to earth)

Now, I've just been out in the garage doing some tests.

With the white lead disconnected, the RCBO will still trip on both the test button and on the RCD tests on the MFT. With it connected, when the RCBO trips (either on manual test, or MFT tests) then it also trips the garage RCD. I've been working with the MFT PE connection to the supply side neutral so the MFT can trip the RCBO under test without tripping the garage RCD.

Does kind of bring back up the old question of why some RCDs work fine and are supposed to be safe without an FE connection, but these need it


On IR tests, on both 250 and 330V, the RCBO doesn't pull down the reading - with brown lead to circuit and blue lead to earth. Reverse the leads and the RCBO pulls the IR down to 0.065M L-E but not N-E. Rough guess, there's a half-wave rectifier from the live output to power the circuitry - so blocking against one polarity (good IR), passing current against the other (poor IR).
I tested the RCBO after this and it still works.

Thread drift ....

Now, hands up, who does IR tests twice, reversing polarity in between ? Who doesn't ?

 

[SimonH2]

Sorry to jump in, but getting an EICR at change of tenancy is a point well raised. This is recommended by the IET. You might want to check your insurance policy and/or letting agent to see if it is a condition.

Fair point, it's not required by either letting agent or insurance co.

Having only 1 tenant in a period of 6 months is no guarantee that there will be less problems/fiddling than having 10 tenants.

Indeed. So do you recommend that (say) a holiday let has an EICR every week or two ? I think it would be hard to argue that a full EICR every week isn't just a tad overkill. How about several times a week for hotel/B&B/etc ?

EDIT: Not trying to be argumentative, but it's an interesting discussion as to why inspection/test on change of occupant is or isn't considered "required" under different circumstances.

And if you accept that an EICR on every occupant change is overkill for short lets/occupancies like that, then what is magical about those of 6 months or more ? IIRC the recommendation is 10 years for domestic, 5 years (or change of occupant) for let property. If there's no sign of meddling, and some basic checks are OK, then what's magical that makes it dangerous not to have a full EICR at 6 months but not dangerous to go 5 years between them - given that from the earlier question I suspect the answer is going to be that an EICR every week or two (on every change of occupant) would be overkill for shorter lets ? You've (effectively) said yourself that the length of occupancy doesn't necessarily alter the risk of them fiddling - a long term tenant could fiddle on day one and then there be no test/inspection for 5 years.

Personally, I think the answer is to apply a bit of judgement and keep a sense of proportion.

Finally, just because others do not take the safety of tenants seriously doesn't mean you should lower yourself to their level...

Given that I believe the norm is almost certainly to do nothing more than a visual, I think this is rising above the norm, not sinking to it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Personal abuse is not warranted. You may disagree with my viewpoint, but if you are incapable of accepting that others have a different view from yours without resorting to personal abuse and insults then that says more about you than it does about me.

I could say what your repeated misclassification of criticism as personal abuse says about you, but you'd probably call that abuse as well.

I called you incompetent, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you have displayed a significant lack of competence in the area of decision making regarding electrical inspection and testing, based on irrational beliefs and disregard for accepted expert advice.

Now, you may not like that judgment, you may disagree with it, you may feel insulted by it, but from my POV it is a simple and evidence based judgment which I have faith in.

I did not call you incompetent to insult you, that was not my motive at all.

And given that your incompetence is leading, possibly, to reduced safety for your tenants it follows that you are dangerous. Again a simple statement of the truth as I see it, not an insult, not abuse.

 

[kevindgas]

Sorry to jump in, but getting an EICR at change of tenancy is a point well raised. This is recommended by the IET. You might want to check your insurance policy and/or letting agent to see if it is a condition.

Having only 1 tenant in a period of 6 months is no guarantee that there will be less problems/fiddling than having 10 tenants.

Finally, just because others do not take the safety of tenants seriously doesn't mean you should lower yourself to their level...

Why not do your testing and then get a sparks to do the EICR - that way everything will be covered and you can compare your findings to his/hers

Good luck

SB

this is by far the best answer i've seen in the 3 pages, really good idea to get a 2nd check and compare as it may highlight a lack of competence in a particular test (it may not of course if everything is identical) as for the holiday let scenario from experience i find that holiday letters tend to just use whats available, whereas short term renters tend to fiddle with things to "improve" not all do but a big %age do some stupid things!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

What I suggest SimonH2, should do is get the property that is for let, properly tested by a competent person.
If SimonH2 wishes to practice with his new MFT, he should do that on his own property, instead of risking the life of others with unsatisfactory I+T reports.