Failed EICR

[lettywetty]

Hello, me again.
Thank you all for your comments, very much appreciated.
Attached is the quote for remedial works that I have just received from the same company.
Does it sound ok to you?
Letty

 

[securespark]

Why do you need a cooker switch?

 

[lettywetty]

I don't know!
I asked the estate agent to who the quote has been sent to get explanation for all the items, except the first one which I believe is honestly priced and necessary. He came back saying "all is justified!".
Anyway, the cooker is connected to the main via a socket but the socket is located under the kitchen worktop behind the dishwasher.
I suppose that the socket needs to be reachable and threrefore need to be moved/replaced. Is that correct?

 

[lettywetty]

It is for the oven which is electric.

 

[securespark]

I think as has been said by RF earlier in the thread, his report does not match your installation. This means the whole report is questionable.

 

[securespark]

There is no specific regulation requiring the fitment of a cooker switch.

Ask the electrician which regulation is being breached.

The person completing the report should be competent.

That is questionable.

 

[ericmark]

Retest and provide electrical condition report is not required, all you need is to provide the minor works with original report, there is no requirement for a retest.

I stopped following this thread so have returned to view report and picture, there seems to be a major flaw, picture clearly shows two RCD's although can't read ratings and the report has no times or currents to show they were tested.

Not saying work is not required, but some thing not right, some where there should be readings for the two RCD's seen to left of the CU.

 

[JohnW2]

Retest and provide electrical condition report is not required, all you need is to provide the minor works with original report, there is no requirement for a retest.

I don't think a minor works certificate would be appropriate for a CU change - but if you change that to "EIC", then I agree - the only things that need 'testing/re-testing' are the new works, and the testing of that will be documented on the EIC. As you say, at least from the point of view of the PRS legislation, a new EICR does not have to be issued.

I stopped following this thread so have returned to view report and picture, there seems to be a major flaw, picture clearly shows two RCD's although can't read ratings and the report has no times or currents to show they were tested.

Quite. As I commented at the time, one has to wonder whether the OP was actually given the right report!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I am not even sure a Minor works is required, all it says is some paperwork to show the work has been done, however likely correct an EIC would be more appropriate. And since a consumer unit change either a compliance of completion certificate. But they do look like to RCD's to left of CU, and I see nothing to show tested, the problem with any report, is one error, and you question the rest.

 

[lettywetty]

This EICR has been done by a BIG company in Leatherhead.
I think that, working with the agent, they are playing a bit dirty and inflating the bill.
I will look on my own for another electrician to do the work.
Thanks to all for your help.

 

[JohnW2]

I am not even sure a Minor works is required ...

AS I need not telly you, any electrical work theoretically 'requires' a Minor Works cert, if not a EIC - and that's a 'general truth' (per BS7671), nothing to do with the PRS legislation.

... however likely correct an EIC would be more appropriate.

That surely has to be correct, since an Minor Works cert would not have provision for recording the tests required after a CU change.

And since a consumer unit change either a compliance of completion certificate.

Yes, but you're now talking about 'notification', which is different from what we're discussing. Although notifiable work has to be 'notified' (directly, or by 'self-notification'), the PRS legislation says nothing about that.

But they do look like to RCD's to left of CU, and I see nothing to show tested, the problem with any report, is one error, and you question the rest.

Indeed - or, as I said, perhaps not even the EICR which relates to the OPs property/installation?

If it is the 'correct' EICR, then it's ridiculous that whoever produced it totally ignored those two RCDs - no matter what they are and what they are protecting. As you say, given such an error/oversight, one cannot know how much of the rest of the report can be taken seriously. It could be comparable with a car failing an MOT for 'not having seatbelts' when it did have them!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

This EICR has been done by a BIG company in Leatherhead.

Big or small the company, as has been said, there is something very wrong with that EICR - which really ought to be 'challenged'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

.

This EICR has been done by a BIG company in Leatherhead.
I think that, working with the agent, they are playing a bit dirty and inflating the bill.
I will look on my own for another electrician to do the work.
Thanks to all for your help.

I would fire off an email to the company asking if they have sent you the wrong report, as their findings do not match reality.
If they say it is the correct report, request a refund.

 

[JohnW2]

I would fire off an email to the company asking if they have sent you the wrong report, as their findings do not match reality. If they say it is the correct report, request a refund.

Indeed - that's certainly what I would do.

That EICR is simply wrong/incompetent - either because they have sent the wrong one (and are now quoting for 'remedial work' on the basis of that wrong report) or else they failed to notice the presence of, let alone test, two RCDs. Either way, it doesn't sound like something I would be inclined to pay for!

Kind Regards, John

 

[lettywetty]

A last thing I would like to know:
the "Ring main investigation" mentioned on the quote, isn't it something that they should have done as part of the EICR, or is it just normal work that they have to do after the remedial works to check that remedial works have been done the correct way?