Rental Property Electrical Tests (IEE BS 7671 EICR)

[ericmark]

There is some debate as to if the cheaper consumer unit actually complies, I may seem daft, but retail outlets can sell you stuff you can't legally use, from electric scooters, two way radios, wood burning stoves and the list goes on.

So the problem here is what is the design date? The regulations have a date from after which any new design must comply, so if you smash a socket and replace it this clearly has not changed the design date, but adding a RCD must in my mind be seen as changing the design, so the design date is now, so it has to comply with today's regulations, however if there was already a RCD fitted and the consumer unit had been damaged then not changing the design so design date is the date original consumer unit fitted.

The design date is a bit open, as I could have designed a system in 2003 and could install it today without notifying under Part P, but I am sure the courts would not see it that way.

But in real terms we should be considering how the system is used and how safe it is in use rather than trying to find a way around the regulations, they were changed to include things like SPD because the equipment we use today requires that protection, and in the 90's before all these fancy consumer units came out, I fitted two RCD's to my house at the time as my 14 year old son had passed his RAE exam and was playing with radios as a radio ham.

However those two RCD's did cause problems, one was internal stair case, so no power and no light on the stairs, so fitted an emergency light on stairs, the second was having to go to garage to reset the RCD's. We seemed over the years to get a bout of tripping, it would happen every couple of days for a month, and even with all the test gear, could not find why, then 2 years and not a single trip, I think likely spikes from neighbour using a welder, but does not really matter why, what matters is it tripped, and over the years we have lost a few freezers full of food.

The more the circuits are split the less the RCD is likely to trip, and also the less is affected when it trips, it has said for some time now

Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:
(iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit
(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation

and one can argue since the RCD does not protect against over current it does not form a circuit, but we all know in real terms it does, so when this house had a new consumer unit it was an all RCBO unit, as I did not want to have to walk outside and down a set of steps in the dark to reset a RCD.

Since you don't need to change the consumer unit, any improvement must be good, however I would not want a phone call from tenant at midnight to say the RCD has tripped and will not reset, and we have no lights, phone call kitchen sockets not working then OK they can wait a day or two while you get an electrician, but half the house out and that is different.

OK back when I fitted RCD's to my first house there were no single module RCBO's I could have used even if I wanted with the old Wilex consumer units, but today they are available, so every circuit can have it's own RCD protection (RCBO is a RCD and MCB combined) it is a risk assessment, what risk of loosing a freezer full of food, tripping over when lights fail, may not be seen as your risk, but it would seem you are a good landlord, so the electrician should explain the risks of not fitting an all RCBO CU with a SPD.

 

[Risteard]

Admittidly folks I thought his price to change the CU and add in the two lighting circuit rcds was pretty cheap.
Had a quick look on screwfix which I know is not the Waitrose of the electrical goods sector but a metal CU was coming out at around £67 and rcds were about £25 each.
So £275 for this including labour doesn't sound that out of line.
I'm not an electrician but if these items from screwfix are BS approved etc and meet the EICR regs, then why would I not choose them?
What extra would I get at buying the more expensive items?
If they are safe and approved and get rid of my EICR C3s, then what is the problem.?

A day's labour is likely to be around £250-£300 (+VAT where applicable) on its own. A decent DB could be around £250-350 in parts with Type A RCBOs plus Type 2 SPD.

 

[WSB]

Thanks all.
I'll read your comments again in further detail later but must admit, I'm now considering leaving the plastic CU in place and just living with the C3s on my EICR.
Only reason I was going to change it was so that my EICR would be squeeky clean and keep any would be insurers happy.
When I saw it for that price, I thought I may as well go for it.
Got me thinking now, it may be more hassle than it's worth and I'd be better off just living with the C3s.
Thoughts?

 

[JohnW2]

The more the circuits are split the less the RCD is likely to trip, and also the less is affected when it trips, it has said for some time now ....

Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:
(iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit
(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation

Eric, you have talked about that (and other parts of that regulation) many times, and like many others seem to take a fairly 'extreme' interpretation of it - an interpretation which could say that anything other than an all-RCBO CU is (and has been for many years) 'non-compliant'. However, that view does not necessarily take on board all of the 'conditional' words in what you quote - which, at the least, make very little actually 'compulsory' - words like ...

Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:
(iii) take account of danger that may arise from the failure of a single circuit such as a lighting circuit
(iv) reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation

That seems to leave scope for a lot of individual discretion in particular situations.

As I've said many times before, if the possibility of sudden loss of a lighting circuit (due to a fault on some other final circuit) is considered to be sufficiently potentially dangerous as to represent a 'non-compliance', then it is surely the case that the absence of emergency lighting should be equally 'non-compliant' - since, certainly in the case of my house, sudden loss of lighting is far more commonly due to a power cut than to operation of any protective device?

As for (iv) above, I have to ask how great is this 'possibility' that the reg wants us to 'reduce'. In ~30 years of living with multi-circuit RCDs (not RCBOs) I have never knowingly experienced a trip for this reason, despite a good few of the circuits serving multiple loads which might be expected to carry the risk of L-E leakage 'in normal operation'. So, at least in my case, that 'possibility' appears to be close to zero, so I'm not sure what one can reasonably be expected to do to 'reduce' that possibility!

Perhaps an extreme suggestion (which I certainly would not advocate!) - but, although the hassle of the argument (e.g. with an 'inspector') wouldn't be worth it, I think one could argue that, provided that there was emergency lighting, the reg could probably be satisfied by a CU with a single RCD protecting all final circuits! I certainly don't think it is necessary to go as far (as some do) as saying that nothing but an all-RCBO CU will satisfy the reg.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

As I've said many times before, if the possibility of sudden loss of a lighting circuit (due to a fault on some other final circuit) is considered to be sufficiently potentially dangerous as to represent a 'non-compliance', then it is surely the case that the absence of emergency lighting should be equally 'non-compliant'

I would agree, however if the loss of light is due to some one getting and electric shock from a non lighting circuit then plunging them into darkness as well is not really a good idea.

Yes the regulations are full of as necessary and take account and so it should be.

I took account of the necessary walk outside in the dark down a set of steps to reset my power. And where the CU is easy to assess I would agree easy to reset, however I also in last house over the nearly 30 years of having RCD protection have lost around 4 freezers full of food, since cause of trip never found, can't say 100% would not have lost that food had the house used RCBO's and in some ways our own fault for leaving the house for an extended time with full freezers.

But there is very little in buying a house and paying the mortgage to renting a house cost wise, so people who rent houses in the main either intend to move, or have an income which the mortgage people are not willing to lend them the money, so are likely short of money, so I may be able to say dam I need to buy more food and shrug it off, but people who rent homes are likely far more affected by loss of food in freezer.

So you need to take into account the necessary replacement of food should it fail while not at home for an extended time, or if not replaced the medical results.

 

[JohnW2]

I would agree, however if the loss of light is due to some one getting and electric shock from a non lighting circuit then plunging them into darkness as well is not really a good idea.

Indeed not. However, nor is it a particularly good idea for people to be plunged into darkness whilst up a stepladder, carrying a pan of hot oil, 'watching' a small child etc. etc. as a result of a power cut.

Hence, if the regs are concerned about such things, they should require something (i.e. emergency lighting) that would work regardless of the cause of the loss of lighting - and, if they did that, then the 'division of the installation into circuits' would become an irrelevance.

Kind Regards, John