EICR unsatisfactory, am I being ripped off?

[JohnW2]

Why has he missed ticking one of the boxes regarding 'Earthing Arrangement(s)? Straight away my suspicions are raised that maybe, just maybe, this guy doesn't actually know what he is doing or if he does he is not doing it correctly in the hope of getting some 'easy' work.

He has, however, ticked "Means of earthing = Distributor's facility" - so this could presumably mean that he couldn't tell (not unusual) whether it is TN-S or TN-C-S, and therefore didn't feel able to tick either of those boxes? ...

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Trouble is Not Available and Not Applicable look the same.

 

[JohnW2]

Trouble is Not Available and Not Applicable look the same.

Worse than that, I suspect that "N/A" (whatever it is meant to mean) is probably the default of his software, which is always there unless/until one changes it to a 'tick'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[just pumps]

That seems like a rather blanket statement. The EICR presented by the OP seems like a reasonably decent report.

It was nothing to do with the report just my experiance of letting agency`s and estate agents making it plain that they expected something from me.

 

[RF Lighting]

It was nothing to do with the report just my experiance of letting agency`s and estate agents making it plain that they expected something from me.

Why would that make a contractor untrustworthy?

 

[ericmark]

An inspector gives his option. There is no rule to say for example you need or don't need a RCD, the inspector has to decide if protentialy dangerous without one, and even if the electrical safety council say the old Wylex fuse box is still serviceable, one must admit had there been a RCD in the Emma Shaw case she would not have died, so one can hardly say he is wrong to give lack of a RCD a code C2.

I have many times I don't think lack of a RCD with a TN installation is only a code C3 but also I can't say some other inspector is wrong to give it a C2.

So may be the question should be as a landlord should you force the tenent to live without the protection the RCD offers, I would say not.

As to code FI I would see that as an incomplete EICR, with some thing like a locked door OK, but not where the inspector had access.

 

[RF Lighting]

FIs do not make a report incomplete thats the whole point of the code. The inspector has identified a problem with two of the circuits which needs time spending to trace and repair said faults.
Who knows where the fault is? and how long it will take to trace it? and if destruction of decorations / ceilings / floor coverings will be necessary? If there was a 100M run of SWA buried underground with low IR you wouldn't expect the inspector to dig the car park up and locate the fault. All well out side the remit of an inspector who is there for the sole purpose of writing a report on the condition of the installation. He is not there to trace and repair faults / non compliances.

 

[JohnW2]

As to code FI I would see that as an incomplete EICR, with some thing like a locked door OK, but not where the inspector had access.

I don't think I agree with that. As I said above, the purpose of an EICR is to identify any 'unsatisfactory' things revealed by inspection and/or testing, not (where it is not obvious) necessarily to investigate the cause of those findings.

As has been said, investigating the cause for an 'unsatisfactory' test result (such as in the OP's case) could take an appreciable, possibly considerable, amount of time, and I don't think it is reasonable to expect that to be undertaken in the context of (and at the pre-agreed price of) 'the EICR'.

It could be that, if he/she brought the issue to the attention of the property owner at the time, it may well be possible for the person who undertook the EICR to undertake (or, at least, start undertaking) that investigative work 'at the time of' the EICR, but that would presumably have to be on the basis of 'new instructions', including an agreed additional price for the investigative work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[just pumps]

Why would that make a contractor untrustworthy?

Because if they have to pay for the lead does that not encourage them to erm, well you know how it works with some.

 

[sircerebus666]

Op - you mention lettings agency, does this mean you are renting?

If so the eicr and associated costs and remedial work are the responsibility of your landlord and not you.

 

[RF Lighting]

Because if they have to pay for the lead does that not encourage them to erm, well you know how it works with some.

Say the letting agent takes a 10% cut for recommending me I just charge 10% extra to this letting agent. The landlord still receives exactly the same impartial report, I still earn the same amount and the landlord pays 10% extra for the convenience of having the letting agent arrange an appointment with me, arrange access with the tenants and process all the paperwork and invoicing etc.

Its absolutely standard practice. Does that make me untrustworthy?

 

[just pumps]

Say the letting agent takes a 10% cut for recommending me I just charge 10% extra to this letting agent. The landlord still receives exactly the same impartial report, I still earn the same amount and the landlord pays 10% extra for the convenience of having the letting agent arrange an appointment with me, arrange access with the tenants and process all the paperwork and invoicing etc.

Its absolutely standard practice. Does that make me untrustworthy?

So you invoice the agent? I stopped doing that.

 

[ericmark]

Insulation resistance (Line/Neutral) under 2MΩ for circuit Cooker DB1 one 2MΩ is normally considered as a pass, and two what is wanted is if reading is with isolator off or on, one would hope isolator off, which would mean there would be a second comment as to cooker, which I have not seen.

I would agree it would take time to do the ring final fault, and can see why FI for that.

No additional protection for all circuits by a 30 mA RCD (not applicable if designed pre BS 7671) (701.411.3.3) seems a little odd, BS 7671 is 1992 so why not say 1992, and 701.411.3.3 is for locations containing a bath or shower, and the relaxing of the bonding in the bathroom so think that came in 2008, it was not 16th edition as numbering changed so it would seem likely unless bathroom has been refurbished since 2008 that does not apply. So we have a date of 1989 so there was neither BS 7671 or 701.411.3.3 in 1989.

I think there should be RCD protection, my last house and this house have had it installed, there was 471-16-01 A socket-outlet rated at 32 A or less which may reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment for use outdoors shall be provided with supplementary protection to reduce the risk associated with direct contact by means of a residual current device having the characteristics specified in Regulation 412-06-02 it became 411.3.3 and has been used to fail many an EICR, but again 2001 that came in.

It is the same old question does it become potentially dangerous? And if not required at time of design is it required now, and with 701.411.3.3 the answer is yes, as before then everything was earth bonded, so the basic point is either earth bonded or RCD, if neither then yes potentially dangerous.

However does it really matter is RCD is required or not? It is not something the tenant can add themselves so should be fitted by landlord, same with SPD the tenant can’t fit it himself and to protect both the landlords and tenants equipment it should be fitted, although clearly not part of an EICR to say it should be fitted.

 

[RF Lighting]

It doesn't matter when the installation was designed or installed. It can be 1 day old or 100 years old it still gets inspected to the regulations in force on the day of inspection.

The fact that RCDs have been a requirement for sockets likely to supply outdoor equipment for such a long time would suggest to me that there is more of a risk associated with those outlets so would be coded as a higher risk than a socket in the loft for the TV booster.

Regulation 471-16-01 is in my 1997 regs book and as far as I'm aware it was introduced in 1992 not 2001.

I imagine the mention of pre BS7671 is some strange auto generated fault by the certificate software and shouldn't really be there.

It is part of the EICR to say that an SPD is not fitted when it should be. Section 443 of BS7671:2018 gives very specific details of when it is or is not required. If it should be fitted and is not it is is a non-compliance and must be noted. Is it dangerous? Unlikely. Could it be better? Yes. C3 improvement recommended.

 

[JohnW2]

I imagine the mention of pre BS7671 is some strange auto generated fault by the certificate software and shouldn't really be there.

I would imagine the same - I've certainly never seen such a statement in any edition of BS7671 in relation to anything!

It is part of the EICR to say that an SPD is not fitted when it should be. Section 443 of BS7671:2018 gives very specific details of when it is or is not required. If it should be fitted and is not it is is a non-compliance ...

I presume that (in BS7671-2018-speak) you mean "non-conformity"?

... it is is a non-compliance and must be noted. Is it dangerous? Unlikely. Could it be better? Yes. C3 improvement recommended.

You seem to be taking the view that any non-conformity with BS7671 has to be 'noted' on an EICR (hence given at least a C3). Is that correct?

If so, that doesn't (by implication) seem to be the view taken by the authors of BS7671. As I often point out, there appears to be just one place where BS7671 gives any guidance (and even that only in an Appendix) about the coding of EICRs, and that is where it says that absence of 30mA RCD protection in a situation in which it is required by current regs should be given "at least a C3".

I therefore think that the authors must believe that there are other non-conformities "that do not warrant even a C3", otherwise it would be very silly of them to single out non-conformity with just one regulation (rather than "every regulation in BS7671") as requiring "at least a C3", wouldn't it?

Since you have raised the topic, I have to say that I am struggling a lot with SPDs. Maybe I'm missing something (maybe a lot!) but, as things stand, I find it quite hard to believe that (using EICR-speak) I will ever come to feel that the absence of SPD protection represents a sufficiently great "potential danger" ('danger' of what?) as to require 'urgent remedial action' - so (other than just to satisfy the regs) I wonder why I would ever be 'recommending' that installation of an SPD would represent an 'improvement'?

Kind Regards,