Switch next to sink

[aptsys]

That report is nonsense. There's items unrelated to BS7671 on there, fire alarms etc should not be mentioned. What's a non-IP rated fitting? Surely every light fitting is IP rated

Most don't quote Regulation numbers. In fact you are explicitly told that you're not supposed to.

Regulation numbers are meaningless for those reading the report.

But in the reasoning for why the remedials should be undertaken, the "inspector" has written "regulations", implying there are specific regs which have been broken.

 

[aptsys]

<deleted>

 

[JohnW2]

It seems this answers the question - measurement is horizontal not point to point.

I don't know where that came from but, as said, the only question it answers relates to what someone's personal view of the situation is.

Common sense suggests that it is preferable not to have sockets (or anything electrical) too close to a sink or cooker but, as you've been told, there is no regulatory requirement.

Whilst someone undertaking an EICR is free to give any code to anything he/so wishes on the basis of their own judgement, there is obviously an expectation that, if it's not simply a case of non-compliance with a specific regulation then there is obviously an expectation that they will be competent enough to exercise sensible judgement.

I doubt that many would agree that to have sockets closer to cooker/sink than an inspector would like to see (a situation which undoubtedly exists in countless homes, and maybe even in your property for a long time) is so 'potentially dangerous' than it warrants 'urgent remedial action' (i.e. "C2").

We've seen some pretty bad EICRs since the PRS legislation came into force, but yours is probably about the worst I've personally seen.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... But in the reasoning for why the remedials should be undertaken, the "inspector" has written "regulations", implying there are specific regs which have been broken.

I initially thought that but, when I looked more carefully, I think that it was probably the reasoning for the recommendation that a further inspection should be undertaken in 5 years.

However, that doesn't alter my view that the whole thing is ridiculous rubbish. In fact, with a couple of possible exceptions (depending on how poor the immersion cable is, and what the comment about the earth continuity on the lighting circuit means), I'm far from convinced that any of the things mentioned deserve a C2 (even if they should have been mentioned at all)!

Kind Regards, John

 

[motorbiking]

The earth continuity is a suspected ceiling rose with an earth sleeve pinch, so it would be a case of opening them all up and twisting them together before re-inserting in the clamp. The immersion heater is a eco 7 with a booster and I suspect the previous tenants have left the eco 7 off and just heated the tank on the booster on-demand, not realising the unit price difference. Its is fried - I did ask them if they could replace the immersion, but it is a plumber job not a sparks job. No doubt a plumber is capable of pairing back/replacing the flex as part of an immersion replacement.

I don't understand how a light bulb in a cieling rose can cause a short problem that goes away when the bulb is taken out. The bulb is new and works, but again 99p to change.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Is the smoke alarm mains/battery operated?

 

[flameport]

I don't understand how a light bulb in a cieling rose can cause a short problem that goes away when the bulb is taken out.

It would show as a short between L&N if someone did an insulation resistance test between L&N with it in place.
That isn't a fault, and if the person doing the tests thought it was, they have no idea what they are doing.

Most of the observations are nonsense, and there are many things which should be on there which are not. Examples being cables in walls not having RCD protection, no RCDs for circuits in or passing through bathrooms, no RCD for lighting circuits, etc.

 

[motorbiking]

Is the smoke alarm mains/battery operated?

mains with battery backup original equipment installed by the developer. Happy to replace as its 26 years old.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

mains with battery backup original equipment installed by the developer

It's just that Part B Approved Document says:

• 1.17 The power supply for a smoke alarm system should be derived from the dwelling’s mains electricity supply....If alarm comprises no stand by power supply, [ie AC ONLY] no other electrical equipment should be connected to this circuit. [ie AC only alarms, must only be wired back to main consumer unit on dedicated circuit].
• 1.18 A smoke alarm, or smoke alarm system, that includes a standby power supply or supplies, [ie AC with battery back up], can operate during mains failure. It can therefore be connected to a regularly-used local lighting circuit.

I can't see any justification for the item relating to fire alarms, even if if were related to BS7671.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I can't see any justification for what the Approved Document says.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

I can't see any justification for what the Approved Document says.

True. It is just that it is hard to see why you should fail a government required test by following government guidance.

 

[JohnW2]

I can't see any justification for what the Approved Document says.

Nor can I really. Indeed, 1.17 seems to make no sense at all (actually sounds 'dangerous') - if an alarm is 'AC only', so it can't provide any battery-powered (visible and/or audible) warning of power failure, I would have thought that the most dangerous conceivable situation would be for it to be on a 'dedicated circuit', since failure of that circuit could go unnoticed/undetected 'for ever'.

However, I think we can probably agree that these alarms have nothing to do with an EICR?

Kind Regards, John

 

[motorbiking]

What I found odd is the alarm is on a radial out of the 5/6A lighting mcb and that’s been flagged as a fault.

I’d have thought it’s good practice to do that. It’s not even a spur off the light circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

What I found odd is the alarm is on a radial out of the 5/6A lighting mcb and that’s been flagged as a fault. I’d have thought it’s good practice to do that. It’s not even a spur off the light circuit.

As I wrote, particularly if it were a 'mains only' alarm (which, without a back-up battery, would be unable to warn that the power had been lost), having it on a lighting circuit does, indeed, seem to be the most sensible course - since one is then likely to become aware of the (lighting) circuit having failed, if it did.

Electrically speaking, whether the alarm were fed from the lighting circuit's MCB or as a branch off the (radial) lighting circuit's wiring (what you are calling a 'spur') would not really make significant difference.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

My 2d FWIW ...

• Item 1, part 1 : "Non-fire rated" is complete b***ocks. Assuming he means not of "non combustible construction" then that's either no code or only a C2 (EDIT, oops, make that a C3 )
• Item 1, part 2 : There is no regulation that requires RCD protected circuits in the CU - lack of RCD protection where required would be a separate observation, and normally only C3. Only the bathroom might justify a C2 - see below on supplementary bonding.
• Item 2 : Assuming this is the typical plastic pendant holder, then the lamp fitted cannot cause a dead short other than between L&N. If there's a L-E or N-E short then it's not the lamp doing it. And if the lamp was creating a dead short L-N it would be tripping the MCB.
• Item 3 : Again, not enough information. If not in a zone then it doesn't need any specific IP rating. The correct description would be along the lines of inadequate IP rating for Zone 2 (I assume it's Zone 2). If the ceiling is high enough to keep the lamp outside of the zones, it's allowed by the regs to have a pendant light fitting directly over the bath. That should be an easy fit - just replace the (assumed) pendant with an IP44 fitting, either LED or 2D flouro with electronic ballast (that's what we have in our bathroom, already in when we bought the place, and it lights up immediately like it's LED).
• Item 4 : As mentioned, not a problem if they have battery back-up.
• Item 5 : As mentioned, smoke alarms are out of scope for an electrical inspection other than for electrical issues.
• Item 6 : Possibly the only contentious one. Provided the light fitting is Class II then it's only a C3, and lets not forget that it's not all that long since it was allowed to have no earths at all in lighting circuits but we weren't all dropping like flies because of it.
• Item 7, part 1 : Not good practice, but not against regs and looking at the photos I'd only code that as C3. I've certainly seen a lot worse.
• Item 7, part 2 : WTF ? There's absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
• Item 7, part 3 : Again, WTF ?
• Item 8 : Again, not ideal but only a C3 looking at the photo
• Item 9 : Would need to see the cable. Could be C3, or C2, or C1 depending on how bad it is. It's an electrician job to replace the cable, the immersion heater itself should only need changing if it's damaged (unlikely). As an aside, tenants using it more than normal wouldn't cause that - a bad connection creating heat would be the cause - unless it's unsuitable cable.

There's no mention of lack of supplementary bonding in the bathroom which would normally be required where there's no RCD.

So IMO just get someone competent to check it over again and ask them to replace the bathroom light and immersion heater cable while they are there. Post a photo of the CU, and I'm sure someone could tell you if RCBOs can be fitted (you only need 4*) rather than replacing the whole thing.
And as said, report it to NICEIC and let us know what happens. My expectation is "absolutely nothing at all" based of other comments I've heard/read about them.

* The off-peak circuits will be hard wired storage heaters I assume. So no sockets to plug anything into. The circuits only need (to comply with current regs) RCD protection if (as would be normal) the cables are buried less than 50mm deep below the wall surface.