Inspection recommends new CU....
- Thread starter WabbitPoo
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I had assumed the writer had just extracted the lines from the report where he thought something is wrong, i.e. all the C1, 2, & 3s.
See pages 400 and 401 in BGB.
1 - 5 Requires a sticky label.
6 - 12 Can't actually tell what is wrong. Only the test headings are shown.
13 - Requires another sticky label.
14 - Is correct. Shower too big or MCB too small.
15 - Self explanatory.
16 - Could be correct depending on the reason for the RCD
17 - Wrong if just because it is old.
6 - 12 Can't actually tell what is wrong. Only the test headings are shown.
13 - Requires another sticky label.
14 - Is correct. Shower too big or MCB too small.
15 - Self explanatory.
16 - Could be correct depending on the reason for the RCD
17 - Wrong if just because it is old.
Sponsored Links
... but, as I said, in large part it is not a "summary of faults" - for many (most) of the items it is just a statement of a regulation, without any clear indication of what the alleged fault actually was.
As I said, in some cases one can guess - (e.g. the references to required labelling presumably implies that the required labels are not present) - but in a good few cases, one cannot even really guess, except in general terms!
Kind Regards, John
Exactly, as I said, 14-17 are clear (even though 17 may, as you say, well be 'wrong') - but items 1-13 are not clear (although one can guess, although one shouldn;t have to, about the labels.
Even if the points it's trying to make are correct, it is an awful report - and I personally would be very reticent to pay for it in that form. I suspect that it is the result of 'point and click' software, used by someone who cannot type!
Kind Regards, John
Yes, probably - although the problem with the shower circuit might be another, as could be the 'missing fuse carrier' (depending on what that actually means).
Kind Regards, John
If it was installed because you have a TT supply (earth rod in the ground), no it is ok.
If it was installed for personal protection, yes.
OK for that purpose, but ...
... could it not be argued that the absence of 30mA RCD 'personal protection' for shower and sockets etc. (particularly any sockets which might be used to power outdoor tools) was a 'safety issue'?
Kind Regards, John
The quote for the works that the letting agent acquired did of course cover everything on the report (at over 2 grand) which is why I am trying to understand what I actually need to fix (while trying to be fair to my tenants)
Yes, we understand that. Items 14-16 (the only ones {plus 17} for which they've typed, rather than 'pointed and clicked!) probably deserve attention - and it might just be that 17 (replacing the CU) is the simplest/easiest/cheapest way of addressing the RCD issue and maybe other issues.
As has been pointed out, we really don't understand what specific faults they are attempting to identify for items 6-12 inclusive, so you really need to ask for (I would say demand!) clarification/explanation before we could offer any opinions as to whether those things actually 'needed' doing.
Do I take it that you are, directly or indirectly, expected to pay for that report? I would add that I would personally be hesitant to even consider asking the author(s) of that report to undertake any work that actually needs doing!
Kind Regards, John
Thanks for the comments, all of you.
I have already paid for it, and I will be going back for clarification.
As for replacing the CU, the company that have quoted for the works say they will have to move the CU location to be away from the gas meter, which is currently right next to the CU, which is presumably why the cost is so high.
Thanks again - if I have subsequent questions I will resurrect this thread.
I have already paid for it, and I will be going back for clarification.
As for replacing the CU, the company that have quoted for the works say they will have to move the CU location to be away from the gas meter, which is currently right next to the CU, which is presumably why the cost is so high.
Thanks again - if I have subsequent questions I will resurrect this thread.
Yes, that's what I wrote.
If it was installed for personal protection, yes.
Sort-of, but I wanted to be sure that the OP fully understood, since there appeared to be a certain amount of ambiguity, with the talk of 'what it was installed for'.
It quite probably was installed for fault protection in an TT installation (and not for personal protection) - but, regardless of the reason (or not) it was installed, the absence of 30mA RCD 'personal protection', per se, is probably something that most people would (rightly or wrongly) regard as a 'safety issue', particularly in rented accommodation.
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
