EICR - Do I need to replace this fuseboard?

[chivers67]

They fitted one RCBO to supply the Central heating

 

[sparkwright]

Indeed, perhaps it would have been slightly better if say the lighting was on an RCBO, and everything else on MCBs protected by the RCD (RCCB).

Either way, with RCBOs being quite cheap now, I would have just gone all RCBOs.

 

[james_help]

The Consumer unit was probably about £50 to £60 with the RCBO, testing the circuits properly and fitting the new board for £250 is peanuts in Surrey! Did the Spark have to go shopping too & return with the board?

Is it a ground floor flat? Does it have any garden?

Kind Regards, John

@chivers67 nooo he had everything in his van @JohnW2 no it is a first floor flat and yes we do have a communal garden at the back

 

[james_help]

To elaborate on the comment on the new consumer unit being a pile on non-compliant junk, which it is, you have the problem with the vast majority of the circuits being supplied by the same one RCD, so if there is a fault with the cooker circuit, you will lose the sockets circuit and the lighting circuit - which is incredibly inconvenient to say the very least.

He should have omitted the RCD, and fitted each circuit on a separate RCBO.

An RCBO is a circuit breaker with an RCD built into it.

The good news is that I imagine BG RCBOs to fit you new board should be relatively cheap.

Whoever fitted that is not a proper electrician.

They fitted one RCBO to supply the Central heating

Indeed, perhaps it would have been slightly better if say the lighting was on an RCBO, and everything else on MCBs protected by the RCD (RCCB).

Either way, with RCBOs being quite cheap now, I would have just gone all RCBOs.

His original price was £400 but I somehow haggled him down to £300 cash. I understand he didn't do a great job from what you guys are saying, can someone confirm what I would need to get this up to standard please? I will purchase what I need and get another sparky down to install...

Will post the EICR report soon

 

[Risteard]

original price was £400 but I somehow haggled him down to £300 cash. I understand he didn't do a great job from what you guys are saying, can someone confirm what I would need to get this up to standard please? I will purchase what I need and get another sparky down to install...

Will post the EICR report soon

You are somewhat to blame for haggling on price. That said £400 was already unreasonable cheap. Around £750 would be more realistic for inspection and DB replacement.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Agree, you get what you pay for. And you have!

 

[JohnW2]

Agree, you get what you pay for. And you have!

I agree but, in this case, I'm no so sure that the person would have done any better a job (or used any more expensive materials) even if the OP had not 'haggled the price down'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Cheapest make it likely Fusebox so prices:-
6 way box with SPD £58.79
5 x RCBO's at £16.20
So without glands, etc, base cost for parts £140, so he is getting less than £160 to fit the consumer unit, think I would have walked away, but you can still buy a populated CU from Screwfix 6 way for £45.77 no SPD, and two type AC RCD only rated to 63 amp, with MCB's fixed sizes, and he who pays the piper calls the tune, you wanted cheap and you got cheap.

 

[james_help]

Hi all, sorry for the delay... see attached test results as requested

 

[flameport]

While many things are not 100% perfect, as no one is, that one is loaded with problems.

Circuits are not in the same order as in the consumer unit.
Device ratings do not match with what's in the consumer unit - the '5 Skt Radial' is listed as a 16A, it's actually 20A. The RCBO for the heating is 20A, but listed on the document as 16A.

Installation method 100 is 'in contact with plasterboard ceiling or joists covered with insulation not exceeding 100mm', which although possible doesn't seem likely for all of the circuits.

A 63A RCD is not compliant if the upstream protection is an 80A device, as the total of the circuit breakers attached to it exceeds 63A.

Ring final circuit resistance r2 cannot be 'LIM' on an installation certificate. It must have a value, or be open circuit. R1+R2 or R2 should be completed, not both - this is even stated at the top of the column.
While permitted, it seems shoddy to not test L-N on the ring circuit. Doing so would mean disconnecting everything, but as it only has 7 points that's not exactly a big inconvenience.
Ring figure8 was not tested, this cannot be N/A as a ring circuit is the only thing it does apply to.

No R1+R2 value, or R2 value for the cooker circuit, one must be provided.

Lighting circuit R1+R2 is far too high, it implies a circuit length of 70 metres, which is inexplicable for a small flat with only 5 lighting points. There is likely a poor connection somewhere resulting in the excessively high reading.

Other items already covered previously are that almost everything is on a single RCD and that RCD is of the wrong type (AC).



Does the installation really have a non-delayed 300mA RCD and an 80 amp circuit breaker supplying it from the basement or wherever the meter is?
Such an arrangement would be very unusual, and if it really does have that, it's not compliant either as there is no selectivity between the 300mA RCD and the RCD / RCBO in the consumer unit.
Can you get a photo of where the supply originates, including the meter and whatever other equipment is connected to it?

 

[JohnW2]

Can someone possibly explain to me (presumably all relating to a single device) ....

Thanks.

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

That's another example of where only one box is used.
For RCDs up to 30mA, they are tested at 5x, so for the common 30mA version, they are tested at 150mA.
Other RCDs rated above 30mA are only tested at 1x, so that alleged 300mA device should only have been tested at 300mA, and the other box left blank.

It may be that the person has confused those boxes where RCDs were and often still are tested at both 1x and 5x, however BS7671:2018 Amendment 2 now states testing at 5x only for 30mA RCDs.

The testing at 1x only for larger values has always been there, mainly to avoid shoving very substantial test currents through such things which could lead to hazardous voltages appearing on exposed conductive parts during the test.
Most of the multifunction and individual RCD testers don't support such high test currents anyway.

 

[Adam_151]

BS7671:2018 Amendment 2 now states testing at 5x only for 30mA RCDs.

Are you sure thats right?

 

[flameport]

No, it's 1x, tested with AC current only regardless of type.

 

[JohnW2]

That's another example of where only one box is used.

Thanks. That's what I thought - and why (by implication) I was asking why both boxes had been completed.

For RCDs up to 30mA, they are tested at 5x, so for the common 30mA version, they are tested at 150mA.
Other RCDs rated above 30mA are only tested at 1x, so that alleged 300mA device should only have been tested at 300mA, and the other box left blank.

Quite so.

It may be that the person has confused those boxes where RCDs were and often still are tested at both 1x and 5x, however BS7671:2018 Amendment 2 now states testing at 5x only for 30mA RCDs.

That's what I wondered. However, that would mean that they would have tested the (alleged 300mA) RCD at 300mA and 1,500mA, and (as you go on to say yourself) I wasn't at all sure that (m)any testers could do the latter! For what it's worth, although my dusty Fluke 1652 will test with IΔn up to 1,000 mA, it will only do x½ and x1 for IΔn > 30mA.

Having said all that, the figures they have recorded seems to be consistent with the fact that they have tested something, somehow, at 1 and x5 -

In fact, do you think the document we have been shown relates to the correct installation? After all, as you have observed, it documents different circuits, in a different order, from those in the CU we have been shown, and also refers to an RCD which does not exist in the CU?

Kind Regards, John