EICR - C2 - circuits 1 and 2 low insulation resistance reading

[JohnW2]

... So, I took a look at one of the other EICRs he did for me - one that passed with flying colours (well, a single C3) and it looks like <1000 and >1000 is how he records these numbers.... obviously as someone commissioning the EICR all I really care about is the 'Management Summary' he gives you - "pass mate" or "work to do here bud". Is the general consensus here that the EICRs should, ideally, have figures - and especially in a C2 noted situation?

Fair comment. I think (without verification from him yet) that it potentially betrays the Electrician thinking something is special about 1000MΩ though... marking results as <1000MΩ and C2 and saying there is a insulation resistance issue that leads to the need for a re-wire... might be all OK (and inarguable)... but the documentation simply doesn't back that up, yes? There should be a number there... a number expected to be <1MΩ?

Everything you say is correct, and everything you have been told here is correct.

As has been said, there is a limit to how high a resistance these meters can measure, so it's totally reasonable and expected that willone see results recorded as ">1000", ">500", ">499" etc. This is what mine shows when measuring 'air' (with 1000V) ...

However, for anything below the ceiling of what the meter can measure, it gives an actual measurement. This is what I saw when I 'breathed onto' a small piece of cloth for a few seconds (to make it slightly 'moist') and then measured it's 'insulation resistance' ...

... so there's no reason why he could not have recorded actual figures for results less than 1,000 mΩ. The strange thing is that he has recorded actual figures for everything else on the EICRs you've shown us.

The thing which (as you have agreed) seems ridiculous is that, when results are not ">1,000", he seems to have simply recorded "<1,000",despite the fact that results dramatically less than 1,000 MΩ (just 'a handful of MΩ) would be OK. As you have said, if he had used "<XXX" to indicate a 'fail', then that XXX should have been very small, probably 'single figures' (1, 2, 5), certainly not 1,000!

I really don't think you can move forward until you have at least an idea of the ballpark of the actual results. If he tries to use the excuse that he did not record actual figures, he ought (particularly if he is recommending a 're-wire') to at least be able to remember whether "<1,000" was actually about 900, 500, 100, 50, 10 or 'less than 5' - or whatever!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Arrrghhh - this nonsense again!

 

[dpm_dpmartin]

Thanks. BTW - I had that "awaiting moderator approval" message once yesterday... I didn't have to do anything pro-active about it, after a few minutes it seemed to go through (maybe someone intervened in truth, but maybe not).

I have decided I am not going to chase him up again today. I tried to get in touch yesterday and I need to ensure I'm calm and collected. I will follow-up tomorrow and the angle will be - 1) what were the actual readings, and 2) what is my option for any actual (necessary) remediation where the Tenant can remain put? I will report back here. Hopefully I can get somewhere without destroying a relationship.

 

[JohnW2]

I do so hate difficult conversations like this... I feel beholden to him because he did the EICR and many other people are telling me something is not quite right with it, that will be a threat to him (especially coming from a mere customer!) and it doesn't bode well. I understand that, it's Human nature. But his only recommendation is for me to get the property empty and re-wire it... hardly realistic and certainly not desirable for the person living there ....

I admire your sensitivities, but I think you're probably going to have to be a bit less 'soft'.

As things stand, what you are being told is not simply "not quite right" - it's actually ridiculous. It's like being told that you house needs to be demolished and re-built because ">1% of the structural timbers are rotten". If ">1%" actually meant "95%", then the advice might be reasonable, but ... !!

If you want to be 'gentle' with him, you could perhaps start by simply saying that you would like to 'understand better', and therefore would like to know "how much less than 1,000" the "<1000" results really were, or something like that (and then play things by ear, depending upon his response)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Our messages have 'crossed in cyberspace'!

Thanks. BTW - I had that "awaiting moderator approval" message once yesterday... I didn't have to do anything pro-active about it, after a few minutes it seemed to go through (maybe someone intervened in truth, but maybe not).

It's unfortunately not uncommon (all due to some seemingly 'dumb' rules applied by the software), but it sometimes can take a few hours for a message to be 'approved'/'released' - which is why I did what I did!

I have decided I am not going to chase him up again today. I tried to get in touch yesterday and I need to ensure I'm calm and collected. I will follow-up tomorrow and the angle will be - 1) what were the actual readings, and 2) what is my option for any actual (necessary) remediation where the Tenant can remain put? I will report back here. Hopefully I can get somewhere without destroying a relationship.

As I just wrote, you may have to harden your approach. Indeed, if you cannot 'get some sense' out of him in relation to this matter then, except at a 'human' level, I'm not sure that it would necessarily be in your future interests to 'preserve the (working) relationship'.

Even if the "<1000" figures really do relate to figures so low that some action is needed, it's extremely unlikely that 'a re-wire' would be the only (or necessarily a sensible) approach. Would you replace a car because there was a hole in its exhaust pipe?

Keep us posted! If you can find out what the 'actual readings' were (at least approximately), may well be able to offer some further suggestions/advice.

Kind Regards, John

 

[dpm_dpmartin]

As I just wrote, you may have to harden your approach. Indeed, if you cannot 'get some sense' out of him in relation to this matter then, except at a 'human' level, I'm not sure that it would necessarily be in your future interests to 'preserve the (working) relationship'.

Inarguable, really.

I'll be back...

 

[securespark]

Have I missed a trick? Quite possible!

I thought all the IR readings were >, not <.....?

 

[JohnW2]

Have I missed a trick? Quite possible! I thought all the IR readings were >, not <.....?

Look at the EICR in post #5 ...

....... most of the circuits have IR recorded as ">1000". .... However, the two sockets circuits (which have been given C2s for this reason) have it recorded as "<1000".

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

1) what were the actual readings,

That is the main thing to obtain.

Something else to consider - the first column (filled in with 1000s) is L-N, and that can only be done properly if all loads are removed from the circuit first. That means unplugging everything, switching off anything connected via FCUs, removing all lamps (light bulbs) in every room, disconnecting the wiring to PIR motion sensors, exterior lights with PIRs in them, LED floodlights and other permanently wired devices such as USB socket outlets, smoke alarms, integrated LED downlights, smart switches and all the rest.

That is rarely done on an EICR as it takes far too long, and would involve dismantling large sections of the installation which could actually create problems.

 

[JohnW2]

... Something else to consider - the first column (filled in with 1000s) is L-N, and that can only be done properly if ...

True - but, to be fair, the 'second column' also bears identical figures to the first - so that the two sockets circuits have "<1000" in both columns, whereas both columns have ">1000" for all of the other circuits.

However, exactly what do those two columns actually mean? The first is labelled "L/L L/N" and the second "L/E N/E". I presume that you're right in saying that the first represents a L-N measurement, so do I take it that the second relates to (L+N)-E, which is what I would have expected would normally be done for an EICR?

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Look at the EICR in post #5 ...

....... most of the circuits have IR recorded as ">1000". .... However, the two sockets circuits (which have been given C2s for this reason) have it recorded as "<1000".

Kind Regards, John

That is indeed the trick that I have missed...

 

[dpm_dpmartin]

I politely followed-up with the Electrician just now... I actually asked about the potential for remediation vs. a full re-wire (in an empty property) based on the low IR C2s, taking into account the Tenant's (entirely reasonable) position that will not allow me to obtain an empty property... so I simply cannot achieve what I'm being told to do.

His reply, verbatim, was - "The c2 s are there for a reason ie rewiring required due to low insulation resistance readings , not my rules as we all have guidelines to work to pal" - this has somewhat depressed me. I've said to him that I'll "look into this further" and what that really means is that I'm now going to ask him about the actual IR readings, not the <1,000MΩ the EICR contains. More to come...

Have you ever felt like you're being held to ransom?

 

[BS3036]

Yes.

 

[dpm_dpmartin]

The Electrician has just refused to share the test results with me. He has come back and said - "Am not arguing over some readings the house wiring is well dated and feel free to get a 2nd opinion too . Anything less than the 1 meg is a fail so if it says less than thats cos it is" - and - "Get someone else to go do the test and i will transfer you the money back after i have had a copy of the new report."

 

[BS3036]

I would guess that he doesn't have the figures. In my opinion the EICR is not complete without those figures and of course he didn't write 'less than 1MΩ' but 'less than 1000MΩ'. Whatever happens I think you would be well-shot of him as he doesn't seem to have any empathy, and is covering up his embarrassment with bluster. Not a helpful reply, I'm afraid.