EICR - Unsatisfactory on new build

[ericmark]

An EICR is what one guy thinks the installation is like. There are some clear requirements, like no holes larger that 12.5 mm where some one can poke there finger in and get a shock, and that means E14, E27, and BA22d bulb holders should be banned, this is clearly not the case, yes there are some safety versions for table lamps, and the regulations do allow them as in the main there should be a bulb in the holder.

But I did get a shock as a small child due to sticking my fingers in a bulb holder, I have never done it again, but 230 volt is potentially dangerous, so hard to say any report is wrong, even if we would award a different code.

For the landlord EICR it states

“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;

nothing about being a scheme member, having C&G 2391 or any other qualification.

There has been one court case I know of where the inspector passed a property when it should not have really passed, trading standards fought the case, but not seen a single court case where the electrician failed the property when he should have passed it, so simply fact is if in doubt fail it. Once failed you need paperwork to show work has been done, which if there was nothing wrong, is not going to be easy.

However it does not require a new EICR, only paperwork to show work done. To do a whole house would likely take half a day or more, if testing all items. However the EICR is not domestic only, and commercially it is often done on a % of the installation and if all inspected and tested is OK then assumed that not tested and inspected is also OK. Idea is different part tested each time. Often done every year, so over 5 years all should be covered. This is clearly not what the government wants with an EICR in a rental property, in fact

“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter;

but the IET has a different definition

Electrical installation (abbr: installation). An assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil Specific purposes.

And items like the boiler, cooker, immersion heater or current using equipment would be tested as part of the "inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment". Often called PAT testing.

For the electrician to remove covers from boilers to inspect how connected in some cases would require him to be gas safe, we would normally include fixed lighting with an EICR, but very little else, however we would also inspect the DNO side, of electrical supply meter although visual inspection as can't break seals, which is not part of the landlord law.

Putting it in a nut shell, the EICR is not like a MOT and for safety of tenants not really fit for purpose. As with many laws, over the years it will be refined with case law, but it still remains even if each version of the wiring regulations state it is the design date that matters, and if it was permitted when designed, there is nothing forcing one to change it. However things have changed, for example 13th editions referred to "Lighting fittings using filament lamps" since we no longer have filament lamps, at least the type it refers to, then that version can't be used any more. The same applies with EV charging points, solar panels, and even switch mode power supplies, things have moved on, and before 1992 there was no BS 7671.

We have also broken the rules with most homes, wiring should be sleeved the correct colour, but in real terms far easier to work with three different colours in a cable to having three browns, pobodies nerfect, look hard enough one can always find errors.

So there was a change the periodic inspection report (PIR) became the electrical installation inspection report (EICR) and code 4 = does not conform with current BS7671 as if a new installation was dropped as being unhelpful and confusing to the client, and a C was added to the codes to show being done to new standards, and we got the C2 = potential dangerous which is also not really helpful as all 230 volt is potential dangerous, but it allowed the client to prioritise clearly C1 = dangerous done first, then C2 and finally C3 = improvement recommended. It was never designed to be enforceable by law, clearly the HSE would take a dim view, and should anyone be injured the landlord would likely be found guilty, but the whole idea of giving the landlord 28 days to correct faults is crazy, in some cases it should be corrected before the inspector leaves, in other it could take 6 months to arrange for a complete house re-wire. When I moved into this house, it took me 6 months to fit RCD protection to all circuits, what should the landlord do? Turn off all circuits which have failed, kick the tenant out until fixed, a house is not like a wagon or car where one can say beyond economic repair so scrap it, were are the tenants to go? Even in this little village I found a father and son living in a tent in March in torrential rain. Any house must be better than that.

 

[ebee]

That may be your opinion, but AFDDs are required for socket outlets in some types of building and are recommended for socket outlet circuits everywhere else.
In the near future, it's inevitable that they will be required in most or all buildings.

I agree with that statement.

That does mean that I have much faith in AFDDs or the need for them. I think the jury is still out on that topic.

It`s not long since (in my working life) that RCDs were oft seen by some as a bit of a gimmick for TN installs but then yes they eventually did become more normalised into peoples perceptions .
In fact, for many years, a rewireable fuse was the norm versus an MCB )I did hear one or two council electricians pushing the merits of MCBs between themselves (? and probably the public?) stating they saved you from electric shock risk of electrocution.

So AFDDs, will they become the norm/almost mandatory? Probably yes I think. Are they really needed? Probably not much I think.

 

[Murdochcat]

So AFDDs, will they become the norm/almost mandatory? Probably yes I think. Are they really needed? Probably not much I think.

I agree 100% with that and as previously wrote there are specified installation types where they are required BUT the vast majority of installations do not

Just make sure any new CU's installed are RCBO boards with SPD and then you have the flexibility for future changes because they are coming.

Why the authors of BS 7671 didn't remove the use of dual or worse single up front RCD boards from BS 7671 at the last amendment is just bizarre to say the very least

 

[ebee]

I`m a "Front-Ender" one (Type AC) covering all domestic circuits and yet another similar set up for off peak heating - It was the way back in the day.

Later on the fashion was to move lighting back off the RCD (or sometimes a global 100mA TD RCD as the first "Split load" design really, it was a while later that twin RCDs in one unit - the number of times I`ve seen them configured in strangely amusing configurations without much thought, became the fashion. In fact I made one for a large house years before it became "a thing to do". Nowadays I usually prefer the each circuit being an RCBO approach though.

 

[asingla]

Many thanks for all the reponses.

I have spoken to the electrican this morning to ask for further clarification on the reporting and he advised that it is down to his own professional judgement when it comes to choosing coding based on his observation and said he could not comment any further on justification over fault codes. I then asked him can he replace the relevant circuit breakers with Compact Type A RCBOs, he advised that is not possible because they are not reliable and will cause problems in the future and said the whole MCU will need to be upgraded as highlighted in his EICR he said. I am not sure whether he is just trying to make money by creating work that does not need doing or whether there is any truth in what he is saying. He also said the cost of replacing the compact type A RCBO's would still be near enough the cost of replacing the whole board itself. I suppose what I am wondering is does the whole unit really need replacing would just by replacing the first 4 circuit breakers with 4 type A compact RCBOs then comply with the standard and pass the EICR.

 

[SUNRAY]

Why the authors of BS 7671 didn't remove the use of dual or worse single up front RCD boards from BS 7671 at the last amendment is just bizarre to say the very least

Why on earth should they?
There are very many installations using up front RCD's without any problems.

One of my (one bed flat) rental properties had a 63A RCD as the main switch feeding the very typical 32A ring, 32A cooker, 6A lights, 6A immersion, 40/45A shower MCB's. One tenant moved in and then complained about everything including lack of RCD. the agent or I addressed everything.

Tenant even wrote to the council complaining about the problems, including 'failure to repair issues' and no 'Earth trip' and the agent would do nothing about it.
Luckily the council contacted the agent and appointment made for a site visit including council electrician, EHO, gas engineer, timber and damp inspector, fire brigade, agent, me.

The only issue raised by any of those was the position of the the gas earth bond was after the first Tee. However that was because the Tee was directly on the meter union.

Off record the council guy congratulated the agent and me what an unusually good state of repair and decoration the flat was in.

Fortunately the tenant was escorted from the building for his own safety by the police a week or two later, unfortunately this was after a fair bit of damage during a drugs related fight. Apparently it wasn't the first time he appeared in court for dealing.

Whole point of this diatribe; the councils electrician who dealt with council owned properties had no issue with the CU using 63A RCD as main switch. As an aside to that I was never made aware of it false tripping.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with that statement. That does mean that I have much faith in AFDDs or the need for them. I think the jury is still out on that topic.

Similar here but, in terms of the 'big picture' (see below) I am pretty sceptical. In particular, I would very much like to see some quantification of the the 'problem' to which they are allegedly a solution.

It`s not long since (in my working life) that RCDs were oft seen by some as a bit of a gimmick for TN installs but then yes they eventually did become more normalised into peoples perceptions .

"More normalised into people's perceptions", maybe, but as I often write, probably questionable in terms of the big picture (the potential saving of lives/injuries had the money been put to an alternative use).

In fact, for many years, a rewireable fuse was the norm versus an MCB )I did hear one or two council electricians pushing the merits of MCBs between themselves (? and probably the public?) stating they saved you from electric shock risk of electrocution.

Indeed. The 'benefits' of new technologies often get 'hyped' by their proponents way beyond anything which is actually true.

So AFDDs, will they become the norm/almost mandatory? Probably yes I think. Are they really needed? Probably not much I think.

Again, that is also my current thinking. As I wrote yesterday, my friends are already discussing (trying to predict) what will be the next 'device' which appears, comes to be recommended and eventually becomes 'mandatory' - all whilst trying to find a problem to which it is a solution

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Why the authors of BS 7671 didn't remove the use of dual or worse single up front RCD boards from BS 7671 at the last amendment is just bizarre to say the very least

Hmmm. As I've just repeated, although they are clearly with us to stay, I do often wonder how many additional deaths and injuries would have been avoided had the amount of money ('billions') spent on RCDs had been directed elsewhere (e.g. road safety, medical treatment, medical research etc. etc.)

 

[EFLImpudence]

Plus all the unnecessary metal CUs and associated work.

 

[JohnW2]

Plus all the unnecessary metal CUs and associated work.

Yep - and, as I've been saying from the start, if it hasn't already happened it's surely only a matter of time before we hear of deaths resulting from CUs becoming metal ?

I have to say that I'm much more 'comfortable' with my (many) plastic CUs etc. than I would be if they were metal.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

I have to say that I'm much more 'comfortable' with my (many) plastic CUs etc. than I would be if they were metal.

Indeed, but there again you`d have to reverse the trend of dumbos being trained up to qualify as meter fitters, the old traditional lads did a pro job much of the time, some of the "new" lot waggle to death the other end of tails and the result (in combo with naff cage clamps) causes more accidents waiting to happen.
We used to do things pretty much reet in many respects but nowadays I think we have become more like a third rate third world country, try and ring an insurance company, DWP, local/central government, GP etc etc etc and despite all the modern methods that could enhance things we get put on hold for hours and hours then disconnected/wrongly routed and a plethora of other issues that not that long ago was a simple straightforward issue of ringing and speaking to a person. We are daft enough to follow and copy countries that land on the moon first and make silicon chips but are oh so uncivilised in so many respects.

 

[Murdochcat]

Why on earth should they?
There are very many installations using up front RCD's without any problems.

Stop them being installed from the next update. That way installations could be upgraded to the latest expensive fad without having to pull a perfectly suitable CU out and throw it away. Consider this a cost saving exercise for the hard pressed property owner if you like

This should have been done when metal CU's became a thing

But I suspect the manufacturers blocked it

 

[JohnW2]

Stop them being installed from the next update. That way installations could be upgraded to the latest expensive fad without having to pull a perfectly suitable CU out and throw it away. Consider this a cost saving exercise for the hard pressed property owner if you like

I'm a little confused. You appeared to be (like me) sceptical/cynical about 'latest expensive fads' and, indeed, the ever-increasing requirements of the regs in general, but you now seem to be supporting, almost 'promoting' the idea that the regs should force people to make provision for future fads.

Even for those who believe RCD protection to be 'worthwhile', dual RCD boards, or even single up-front RCD ones, pose no electrical hazard, and what 'inconvenience' they may result in (once in a blue moon for most people) is no worse than the 'inconvenience' caused by a power cut - something against which BS7671 does not require any 'protection' in domestic premises.

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed, but there again you`d have to reverse the trend of dumbos being trained up to qualify as meter fitters, the old traditional lads did a pro job much of the time, some of the "new" lot waggle to death the other end of tails and the result (in combo with naff cage clamps) causes more accidents waiting to happen.
We used to do things pretty much reet in many respects but nowadays I think we have become more like a third rate third world country, try and ring an insurance company, DWP, local/central government, GP etc etc etc and despite all the modern methods that could enhance things we get put on hold for hours and hours then disconnected/wrongly routed and a plethora of other issues that not that long ago was a simple straightforward issue of ringing and speaking to a person. We are daft enough to follow and copy countries that land on the moon first and make silicon chips but are oh so uncivilised in so many respects.

I agree with all your observations but they are really just reflections of how all aspects of society have changed. I'm not really sure 'why', but I don't think that it is primarily because we have copied other countries.

I suppose that, in the final analysis, a lot of what you mention (and a lot more) comes down to matters of time/money - which, in turn, reflects what people expect (or are prepared) to pay for 'services' ... not to mention what has probably been a pretty dramatic increase in 'demand' (in the broadest of senses) over the decades.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I don't have an issue with metal CU's per se, one only has to look at the larger (commercial) units to se they have pretty much been since the year dot.
Domestically they started as a board then enclosed in wood then cast iron then sheet metal. I have worked on all of those.
I don't know when the bakelite fronted Wylex originated but we changed the wooden fusebox in a 1951 house with metal Wylex about mid 70's.
My first house I fitted 2 bakelite versions 1983, one had wooden frame, t'other had Plastic.

Current home1994; I changed

to 8 way bakelite Wylex and about 2003 to square D plastic split load and then fitted mostly RCBO's about 2010.

In recent times I have been party to fitting dozens of metal CU's, although the stupidity irks me I just treat it as the silly neccessity it has become.

Given a free hand to fit a CU in an installation, metal or plastic wouldn't particularly bother me either way, both have advantages and disadvantages.