can I replace mcb myself ?

[DetlefSchmitz]

...however it states that the tester must be able to rectify the faults found...

May I ask where what states this?

 

[Gary111]

Nothing wrong with that either - as long as it is only one socket, even a double.

I took it up with the company that did the eicr and they said
“I have been told by an electrician that 50a is fine for a 9.5 kw shower – Yes he is right that a 9.5KW shower will not overload the cable put 6mm cable can’t carry 50 amps so there’s a potential to overload the cable if a bigger shower was to be installed in the future, this is definitely a code C2 all day long and most inspectors would agree, as well MCB’s are not expensive. 50 amp MCB should never have been installed in the first place for a 6mm cable so this would be poor workmanship (this is also in the best practice guide as a C2).”

 

[scousespark]

Hi, Im a residential landlord and have a couple of mcbs that have been flagged up on the eicr to change the rating of , I know what to do but have no qualifications apart from pat testing.
Can I change them myself or do I need to get someone in to do it ?

Also one of them is a 32a one on an electric shower, presumably they want it to be 40a however it never trips, is that really necessary ?

thank you

On page 1, there is a summary stating whether your installation is satisfactory/unsatisfactory. Is it showing unsatisfactory?
If it unsatisfactory, there should be observations listed on page 2. Can you check what is listed and the codes?

It is easier advising when you tell us what is in the report.

 

[Gary111]

Thanks. here are the codes, there are 5 seperate consumer units

 

[EFLImpudence]

I took it up with the company that did the eicr and they said
“I have been told by an electrician that 50a is fine for a 9.5 kw shower – Yes he is right that a 9.5KW shower will not overload the cable put 6mm cable can’t carry 50 amps so there’s a potential to overload the cable if a bigger shower was to be installed in the future, this is definitely a code C2 all day long and most inspectors would agree, as well MCB’s are not expensive. 50 amp MCB should never have been installed in the first place for a 6mm cable so this would be poor workmanship (this is also in the best practice guide as a C2).”

I am sure you can see the flaw in their explanation.

If you do something you shouldn't in the future it could be "potentially dangerous" (the criterion for a C2), obviously means that at present it is not potentially dangerous.

That they are quoting "Best Practice Guides" rather than The Wiring Regulations is surely an indication that they are not experienced nor knowledgeable enough to be carrying out EICRs.

Regulation 433.3.1
"A device for protection against overload need not be provided:

(ii) for a conductor which, because of the characteristics of the load or the supply, is not likely to carry overload
current, provided that the conductor is protected against fault current in accordance with the requirements
of Section 434"

It will be protected against fault current by the 50A MCB.

 

[AndyPRK]

what happens if someone puts a nail thru the 6mm cable ?
I guess the MCB will quickly trip

 

[ericmark]

May I ask where what states this?

Maybe I have got it wrong, I have looked and now can't find it. However as far as doing the EICR myself it does state:-

“qualified person” means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards;

so if you can't do the remedial work, then your not qualified.

Each time I read it I seem to find some thing else.

to ensure that every electrical installation in the house is in proper working order and safe for continued use;

so it seems if for example there is a fault on the immersion heater, but there is central heating so not really required, one can't simply isolate it?

The problem to me is the check list to satisfy that the inspector is qualified to do the inspection.

Carrying out an inspection of electrical installations is a complex task that requires an extra level of qualification and competence achieved beyond the standard 4-year vocational route commonly followed by qualified inspectors and testers. Therefore, Government will develop, with industry experts, new guidance for landlords stipulating who can carry out the mandatory electrical installation checks.

Where is this new guidance for landlords? I can find many web pages which say what they think should the qualifications should be, but not a government one.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just to point out that, on the certificate relating to the 50A MCB, the mentioned 433.1 and 533.2.1 both relate to "overload protection".

As a shower and its adequate cable do not need overload protection, neither of the mentioned regulations applies - so that is wrong as well.

 

[Gary111]

Thanks very much for your help

 

[Gary111]

I went back to him with your points, he says he phoned niceic and they agree with him

 

[Gary111]

He also emailed me

That they are quoting "Best Practice Guides" rather than The Wiring Regulations is surely an indication that they are not experienced nor knowledgeable enough to be carrying out EICRs – that’s a bit of a presumption, they no nothing about our experienceand the best practice guide is a recognised document by the NICEIC, ECA, EAL, British Gas, Beama, AESM, BSI, Certsure, City & Guilds, IET, Napit, Spaces & Select so I’m not sure how this means we are not knowledgeable enough when all these companies support the document.


The bottom line is that this is poor design and there’s nothing stopping someone in the future installing a bigger rated shower which could overload the cable.


The circuit does not comply with Regulation 433.1.1:

The operating characteristics of a device protecting a conductor against overload shall satisfy the following conditions:

(i) The rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) is not less than the design current (Ib) of the circuit, and

(ii) the rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) does not exceed the lowest of the current-carrying capacities (Iz) of any of the conductors of the circuit


Its like saying lets just install 32amp MCB’s or bigger MCB’s than cables can carry on all circuits, we know that the circuits will use less amps than the cable can carry, they are talking utter non-sense.


I spoke to the NICEIC technical helpline and they agreed.

 

[EFLImpudence]

that’s a bit of a presumption, they no nothing about our experienceand the best practice guide is a recognised document by the NICEIC, ECA, EAL, British Gas, Beama, AESM, BSI, Certsure, City & Guilds, IET, Napit, Spaces & Select so I’m not sure how this means we are not knowledgeable enough when all these companies support the document.

They don't write the regulations.

It is a guide for people who don't themselves know or can't work it out.

The bottom line is that this is poor design and there’s nothing stopping someone in the future installing a bigger rated shower which could overload the cable.

That is irrelevant.

The circuit does not comply with Regulation 433.1.1:

It doesn't have to. See 433.3.1

The operating characteristics of a device protecting a conductor against overload shall satisfy the following conditions:
(i) The rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) is not less than the design current (Ib) of the circuit, and
(ii) the rated current or current setting of the protective device (In) does not exceed the lowest of the current-carrying capacities (Iz) of any of the conductors of the circuit

The conductor does not require protection against overload.
They are saying the circuit does not comply with a regulation that does not apply to it.

Its like saying lets just install 32amp MCB’s or bigger MCB’s than cables can carry on all circuits, we know that the circuits will use less amps than the cable can carry, they are talking utter non-sense.

Only if the circuit requires overload protection. Your shower circuit does not.
He is showing his lack of knowledge and experience.

It is the same with your one socket circuit. It is protected against overload by the 13A fuse in the plug; not the MCB.

I spoke to the NICEIC technical helpline and they agreed.

Well, then they are wrong as well.
It is not unheard of and they often make up their own rules.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I realise that you are on a losing battle as they are not going to back down, but perhaps they will have learned something and will be better in the future.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh - why do they have to ask NICEIC? What does that tell you?

 

[JohnW2]

I took it up with the company that did the eicr and they said
“I have been told by an electrician that 50a is fine for a 9.5 kw shower – Yes he is right that a 9.5KW shower will not overload the cable put 6mm cable can’t carry 50 amps so there’s a potential to overload the cable if a bigger shower was to be installed in the future, this is definitely a code C2 all day long and most inspectors would agree, as well MCB’s are not expensive. ....

It would not surprise me if a lot of inspectors would, indeed, 'agree' (i.e. act/code the same), but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.

Others may disagree with me (but EFLI certainly seems to agree!) but, for what it's worth, my personal view is that an EICR should relate to an installation 'as it is' at the time of the inspection, and should not consider what the situation would be if someone subsequently made some (incorrect) change to the installation (such as installing a larger shower).

As everyone seems to agree, a 9.5kW shower cannot overload a 6mm² cable (and a 50A MCB would almost certainly provide adequate 'fault protection' - and that could be confirmed), so the situation, 'as it is', is totally compliant with BS7671.

The argument being presented in justification of the C2 results from an obsessive (and incorrect) belief that a 6mm² cable can never be adequately protected by a 50A MCB, on the part of people who have not read, or are not able to understand, all of the regulations in BS7671.

The argument that some idiotic changes in the future might render the installation non-compliant could be taken to silly extremes.

Kind Regards, John