Landlord EICR

[mointainwalker]

]

" Strip down the existing boards
Prepare the areas and connections for the new installations
Install a new metal 6 way split-load board with dual RCD protection
Install a second 5-way metal board with RCD protection

The above is all that I have received for remedial work.

However going back to the report under 4.0 Consumer Units/Distribution Boards is listed

4.4 Condition of enclosures in terms of fire-rating ('é&.1.201;526.5) C3

so that's only a recommendation.

Have we been told why it is thought you need a new CU?

Insufficient space perhaps ? He speaks of dual RCD's on one board where there is already one Wylex, although it does seeem to me that there is enough space for another RCD, and then he mentions " a second 5-way metal board with RCD protection" and I am unsure how that works with the WYLEX fuse-board with the 15A fuses.

Over to you.

 

[ericmark]

You have old likely obsolete distribution boards, likely the larger board got a code 1 due to missing blank, that is easy enough to cure, however as to upgrade the question on need for upgrade is linked to 701.415.2 Supplementary equipotential bonding.

In BS7671:2008 it was allowed to reduce the bonding in a bathroom on condition all circuits in the bathroom are RCD protected.

So it hinges on the inspection and testing in the bathroom as to if RCD protection for lights is required.

The regulations are not retrospective, but some laws are, and the regulations follow new laws, so without reading all new laws hard to say what is allowed, however the EICR does not say if the premises are legal or comply with regulations, we have a series of codes of them code C1, C2, and FI are considered as fail.

Code C1 = Dangerous and there is little argument, if you can touch a live part clearly dangerous and likely can touch live part through the missing blank.
Code C1 = Potentially Dangerous and 230 volt electrical equipment is potentially dangerous so rather a silly phase, but most take the view if it was not considered as potentially dangerous when the British electrical system was changed to use the ring final during WW2 then it can't really be considered potentially dangerous now unless some thing has changed to make it so.

There have over the years been changes, from moving to TN-C-S earthing, to bathroom bonding, and over the years we have had some major changes, 1966 we had to include an earth wire to lighting, and the use of RCD protection has slowly evolved first for TT supplies, then supplies outside, and now near every circuit, and with this the installation equipment has also changed, in 1992 when I wanted to fit RCD protection as son had become a radio ham, I could not have fitted a metal type tested enclosure with type A single modular width double pole switching RCBO's and a surge protection device even if I wanted to, the units were not available. So I ended up with this two old Wylex fuse boxes with the fuses swapped for MCB's and two RCD's feeding the fuse boxes. Over the years the RCD's have both protected and been a problem where they have tripped with no good cause, today's RCD's are half the size, and include electronics allowing them to be more resistance to spikes plus the SPD removes spikes, and today one would not consider fitting RCD protection outside of the main type tested consumer unit as simply no point.

But costs have also changed, those MCB's today cost around £11 each, a modern one from same firm £4.20 so often it is false economy to try to retain the old units.

As a home owner I can decide how far to go, and if as said I have a son who plays with radio I can go the extra mile, or if I do nothing but watch TV all day and do no DIY or hobbies likely to cause danger I can select to not upgrade, but not as easy for the Landlord, he has less control over what people do in his house, and he has to consider if he should provide protection for the occupants.

When things have gone wrong, even when one thinks hang on they saw it sparking why did they touch it, courts rarely blame the tenant it is normally the landlord who is blamed, so consider the court case, the electrician recommended fitting RCD's and the landlord did not fit them so when little Johnny did some daft action he died. Fitting the RCD protects you as well as the tenant.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Insufficient space perhaps ? He speaks of dual RCD's on one board where there is already one Wylex, although it does seeem to me that there is enough space for another RCD, and then he mentions " a second 5-way metal board with RCD protection" and I am unsure how that works with the WYLEX fuse-board with the 15A fuses.

Over to you.

Are you going to let the property?
If so, it is probably desirable to install the latest safety requirements.

If not, then what you have been told is similar to taking your car for an MoT and the garage telling you that he can sell you a new Tesla.

 

[mointainwalker]

Are you going to let the property?
If so, it is probably desirable to install the latest safety requirements.

Yes it will be let, but I do not want to waste money/waste product (80/20 to be honest ) Is it reasonable/economical to ask for the second RCD ( per quote ) to be installed in the first WYLEX board and not require a new board ?

To;reply to ericmark there were no C1's.

 

[flameport]

Is it reasonable/economical to ask for the second RCD ( per quote ) to be installed in the first WYLEX board and not require a new board ?

No.
The existing one is 20+ years old and obsolete, there are no parts available to fit into it.
It was designed to have one RCD for some of the circuits, there was no option for multiple RCDs even when it was a current product.

The options are keep what you have got, or replace the whole lot.
If you keep the existing one, you won't be able to have any alterations or additions to any of the circuits.

 

[mointainwalker]

Right, thanks to everyone for their help in explaining things, it's been valuable to me.

 

[mointainwalker]

Hi, thought I had finished but just had this exchange with electrician ( via agent )

Question


1) What make of RCD would be fitted ? What circuits would the RCD's cover (including the existing one ) ?
2) What height was measured in the bathroom that puts the fitting in Zone 2, ? I believe that the ceilings are higher than the standard 230 cm and no live element would therefore be within the 225cm Zone 2 limit

Reply:

All the code 2 and code 3 observations on the report will be rectified once the remedial works have been carried out, the bathroom light needs to be IP rated regardless of ceiling height.

The make of RCD used will be british general and all circuits will be covered by the 18th edition split load consumer unit once installed, the only other circuit covered by the existing RCD is the ring main circuit.


...............................................

He doesn't answer why the bathroom light needs to be IP-rated when the light is above 225 cm which, AFAIK, takes it outside all zones: it is probably 30-40 cm from the bath edge. He did however make the following comments in the report.

"5.12.5 Final circuits supplying luminaires within domestic (household) premises (411.3.4) is in a potentially dangerous condition. Urgent remedial action is required. C2 "

6.6 Suitability of equipment for external influences for installed location in terms of IP rating (701.512.2) is recommended for improvement. C3 "

I have difficulty in understanding how "Final circuits supplying luminaires within domestic (household) premises (411.3.4) is in a potentially dangerous condition." is obviated by using an IP fitting. This being C2 qnd the only mention of IP gets a C3

I've never heard of British General: decent make ?

 

[JohnW2]

... "the 18th edition split load consumer unit"

Wot's dat?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

That globe lamp is perfectly acceptable - and what you would fit in a bathroom.

He cannot just say an item is not IP rated - everything has a rating even if it is IP00

https://xpresselectrical.ie/product/robus-100w-bathroom-ceiling-globe/

Specifically stated as suitable for bathrooms.
Scroll down and you will see it is IP44 - the same as an electric shower and where are they fitted?

 

[ericmark]

Electricians have been debating the EICR for years, every edition of the wiring regulations state the date after which designs (note design not date completed) must comply with it, and then continues to say "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading." so some feel this auto refers one to an earlier edition, however the current regulations have changed to includes changes necessary to maintain technical alignment with CENELEC harmonization documents and also HSE laws. So the "does not necessarily mean" also mean it could be required.

However the code 4 with an EICR has been removed, (It did say does not comply with current edition) and the fails are code C1, C2, and FI so although concerned about C3 that's no a fail.

In the main code C1 is not a problem, you can either touch a live wire or not, i.e. either dangerous or not. FI means in real terms no access, so again not really worried about that, so it is code C2 = potentially dangerous, and all 230 volt is potentially dangerous, so down to the inspector, but C2 is not does not comply with current regulations, that was 4 which was removed.

So one could say if as installed, and it was OK when installed, and nothing has degraded or changed then not a code C2, however since 1882 things have changed, there was no TN-C-S or PME and to be frank to work out when things changed is not easy, major changes yes, but the ELCB-v used in early TT supplies was found to be unreliable and was replaced with the ELCB-c renamed RCCD then RCD. The whole reason for the earthing change in 1966 was the use of metal light fittings, and increased use of electrical items in the garden also caused problems. Today the electric car is also causing problems.

So the big question is what is potentially dangerous? And when one reads the reports on things like the death of Emma Shaw it is clear if back then we had used RCD protection on all circuits she would not have died. So how can anyone say circuits without RCD protection are not potentially dangerous?

Well had everything else been done correct then also she would not have died, so there is also the fact that the electrical safety council seems to think we can continue to use a fuse box, but there is no instructions to say exactly what the inspector has to pass or fail, which means the new low is a little daft, but it is all down to the inspector.

 

[securespark]

It would be interesting to send his comments to the scheme provider for their perusal.

 

[ericmark]

What scheme provider? As far as I can tell it is not a form issued by any scheme provider so for a owner occupier it is up to owner what he does, and for rental it would be down to the local authority as to if they felt the home complied with safety standards.

Unlike an MOT the inspector does not have to pass any tests, or exams or be authorised by any over seeing authority. As said before "“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;" the class competent has been removed from BS7671 it was to be able to do the work safely for himself and others. Skilled only needed to look after himself.

With our membership with the EU we had to allow people qualified in other member states to work here, so we could not say electricians needed a city & guilds, or any other written qualification in law, however the scheme providers did required electricians to up date their skills, but there is not even a requirement to speak English, Welsh is still OK, in fact in Wales there has to be a Welsh version of every law, as to a exam on BS7671:2018 well not published in Welsh so I can't see how C&G can set a Welsh exam on an English book? This is likely why it states BS7671 is not law?

So if a Landlord says he is qualified to ensure every electrical installation in the residential premises is inspected and tested at regular intervals and the electrical safety standards are met, who can say he is not? It would require a court case and we would then have case law, but until some one is taken to court as not being qualified it is a free for all.

 

[JohnW2]

... in fact in Wales there has to be a Welsh version of every law ...

You write this very often, but I wonder what gives you that idea, since I personally find it very hard to believe.

Legislation enacted by the National Assembly for Wales has always been published in both languages, so the issue does not arise.

However, a lot of 'UK' ('Westminster') legislation still applies to Wales (and most of it explicitly states that it applied in "England and Wales") yet,to the best of my knowledge, none of it is published in Welsh. Indeed, even the "Welsh Language Act 1993" (which superseded the 1967 Act of same name), which is the primary legislation which permits Welsh to be used in various official setting sin Wales (e.g. in Courts) does nogt appear to have been published in Welsh.

I therefore cannot help but wonder whether this frequent assertion by you may, in fact, be yet another of those "urban myths/legends"?

... as to a exam on BS7671:2018 well not published in Welsh so I can't see how C&G can set a Welsh exam on an English book? This is likely why it states BS7671 is not law?

I wouldn't have thought so. I would have said that BS7671 is "not law" because "BS7671 is not law" (since it is merely a British Standard).

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

I've never heard of British General: decent make ?

It's a low end cheapo lot that's typically sold in places like Screwfix. Made down to a price rather than up to a specification.

all circuits will be covered by the 18th edition split load consumer unit once installed,

Split load used to refer to a board with roughly half the circuits covered by a single RCD. They were popular 20+ years ago and is basically what you have already got.
There are no '18th edition' consumer units, or any other edition. They are just useless terms invented by marketing types for people who have no clue what they are buying.

If you go with their suggestions, it's fairly likely you will end up with something like this pile of junk: https://www.screwfix.com/p/british-general-12-module-6-way-populated-dual-rcd-consumer-unit/4674g

 

[SimonH2]

If you go with their suggestions, it's fairly likely you will end up with something like this pile of junk: https://www.screwfix.com/p/british-general-12-module-6-way-populated-dual-rcd-consumer-unit/4674g

And have a large-ish box with no scope for adding any circuits in the future.
If having teh CU replaced, it makes sense to fit one with some spare ways - as long as you have room for it of course. The extra cost of the box is very little at the time of buying it - if you want more space later then it's either an extra box of rip it out and replace it again.