The second electrician says the first one shouldn't have issued a satisfactory EICR.

[Murdochcat]

Poor or no labelling seems to be the norm these days ........

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

I wonder if the water heater was once an immersion, but changed for a central heating boiler?

Maybe, but it's called an immersion on the new schedule.

 

[hllns]

They're the same CU and MCBs aren't they? The blurry pic just has them rearranged and a couple more MCBs from another vendor. Even on the "before" pic the 32A is for the cooker not a "Washing Machine" surely?

 

[NorthernLights811]

On the original the immersion heater seems to be on a 6A MCB.

There's no immersion heater anymore, as the shower is now connected to the boiler.

 

[Murdochcat]

We need a far better photo to help you

 

[NorthernLights811]

I wonder if the water heater was once an immersion, but changed for a central heating boiler?

Yes, exactly that. I just replied to a comment above.

 

[sparkwright]

They're the same CU and MCBs aren't they? The blurry pic just has them rearranged and a couple more MCBs from another vendor. Even on the "before" pic the 32A is for the cooker not a "Washing Machine" surely?

They are different CUs. Different makes, for a start.

Send a better pic, I must admit, I think the second bloke may be right, or have a point at least.

 

[Murdochcat]

They're the same CU and MCBs aren't they? The blurry pic just has them rearranged and a couple more MCBs from another vendor. Even on the "before" pic the 32A is for the cooker not a "Washing Machine" surely?

the washing machine could be plugged into an old cooker circuit, this isn’t unusual

 

[NorthernLights811]

I'll post back with a better quality pic when I visit the property next time, thanks all for your so far input!

 

[ericmark]

The EICR has three fail options, we are looking at C2 = protentially dangerous. It does not say does not comply with BS7671 or and other set of rules, all it says is protentially dangerous.

So in real terms hard to say it is right or wrong.

 

[flameport]

Unclear exactly what has been done when.
However those documents have significant inconsistencies between them, and a number of obvious blunders.

The September 2019 consumer unit installation document states a 40A fuse, 0.4 ohms and 0.61kA. While not impossible, these values are unlikely.
It also states a BS1361 Type 1, and then Type 2 immediately below. Can't be both.
Maximum load stated as 60A (clearly unsuitable for a supply with a 40A fuse), main switch is stated to be an MCB (wrong), and the main bonding conductors 16mm² (they are 10mm² on the 2021 report).
Inspections - 2.1 and 2.2 rarely apply to domestic installations and nothing indicates they would apply to this one.
3.1 claims to have an earth electrode, which is exceptionally unlikely on a TN-S supply. Also claims RCDs provided for fault protection which they are not.
6.1 SELV is indicated, but nothing to suggest where or what (likely doesn't exist)
7.3 presence of main linked switch is NA, yet there must be one, you can see it in the photos.
7.10 ticked to confirm AFDD notice exists, but there are no AFDDs in the installation.
8.3 NA, but it's inevitable that there are other services present such as gas and water
8.7 ticked, but unlikely all concealed cables were inspected when just replacing a consumer unit
8.14 metal partitions are not likely in an older property with a TN-S supply.

The May 2021 report has the supply as a 60A fuse, loop impedance 0.2 ohms and PFC of 1.15kA, all of which is certainly plausible. These are completely different from the 2019 consumer unit installation documents.
The inspections are slightly better, but there are items which are either missed or wrong
4.15 protective devices in line only marked as NA - however they either are or are not.
4.18 RCDs for fault protection again - wrong
4.19 RCDs for additional protection NA, but that's what the RCDs are for.
4.20 claims there is a SPD, but no SPD in the photos
5.2 cables correctly supported is impossible, cables concealed in walls/ceilings/floors would not have been inspected.
5.4 conduit and trunking systems is unlikely for a domestic installation
5.9 is NA but wiring systems are either suitable or they are not.
5.11 ticked, but no evidence of armoured cables or similar
5.12 metal partitions again. Not impossible that there are some, but very unlikely.
5.19 marked NA, either accessories are suitable or they are not.
5.21 - NA, so presumably did not bother to check any of them
6.2 SELV used as a protective measure - unlikely.
6.4 supplementary bonding exists, yet the 2019 report stated it didn't. Implausible that some would have been added between 2019 and 2021.

The test results reveal nothing, they are all practically perfect in every way. For an old installation, that is suspicious.

The photos are inconclusive.
The 2019 photo has 7 circuits which match to the May 2021 report, but the blur-o-vision June 2021 photo (only a month later) has more circuits and existing ones have clearly been rearranged. Also unclear why someone has shoved Contactum MCBs into a BG consumer unit, BG parts can be obtained anywhere including places such as Screwfix and B&Q,.

Absolute best is that those completing the documents were careless and did not read what they were writing.
More likely is that they didn't understand a substantial part of what they were doing, and the documents are worthless.

 

[Murdochcat]

I guess the obvious question is who has been making changes to the CU?

 

[NorthernLights811]

Unclear exactly what has been done when.
However those documents have significant inconsistencies between them, and a number of obvious blunders.

The September 2019 consumer unit installation document states a 40A fuse, 0.4 ohms and 0.61kA. While not impossible, these values are unlikely.
It also states a BS1361 Type 1, and then Type 2 immediately below. Can't be both.
Maximum load stated as 60A (clearly unsuitable for a supply with a 40A fuse), main switch is stated to be an MCB (wrong), and the main bonding conductors 16mm² (they are 10mm² on the 2021 report).
Inspections - 2.1 and 2.2 rarely apply to domestic installations and nothing indicates they would apply to this one.
3.1 claims to have an earth electrode, which is exceptionally unlikely on a TN-S supply. Also claims RCDs provided for fault protection which they are not.
6.1 SELV is indicated, but nothing to suggest where or what (likely doesn't exist)
7.3 presence of main linked switch is NA, yet there must be one, you can see it in the photos.
7.10 ticked to confirm AFDD notice exists, but there are no AFDDs in the installation.
8.3 NA, but it's inevitable that there are other services present such as gas and water
8.7 ticked, but unlikely all concealed cables were inspected when just replacing a consumer unit
8.14 metal partitions are not likely in an older property with a TN-S supply.

The May 2021 report has the supply as a 60A fuse, loop impedance 0.2 ohms and PFC of 1.15kA, all of which is certainly plausible. These are completely different from the 2019 consumer unit installation documents.
The inspections are slightly better, but there are items which are either missed or wrong
4.15 protective devices in line only marked as NA - however they either are or are not.
4.18 RCDs for fault protection again - wrong
4.19 RCDs for additional protection NA, but that's what the RCDs are for.
4.20 claims there is a SPD, but no SPD in the photos
5.2 cables correctly supported is impossible, cables concealed in walls/ceilings/floors would not have been inspected.
5.4 conduit and trunking systems is unlikely for a domestic installation
5.9 is NA but wiring systems are either suitable or they are not.
5.11 ticked, but no evidence of armoured cables or similar
5.12 metal partitions again. Not impossible that there are some, but very unlikely.
5.19 marked NA, either accessories are suitable or they are not.
5.21 - NA, so presumably did not bother to check any of them
6.2 SELV used as a protective measure - unlikely.
6.4 supplementary bonding exists, yet the 2019 report stated it didn't. Implausible that some would have been added between 2019 and 2021.

The test results reveal nothing, they are all practically perfect in every way. For an old installation, that is suspicious.

The photos are inconclusive.
The 2019 photo has 7 circuits which match to the May 2021 report, but the blur-o-vision June 2021 photo (only a month later) has more circuits and existing ones have clearly been rearranged. Also unclear why someone has shoved Contactum MCBs into a BG consumer unit, BG parts can be obtained anywhere including places such as Screwfix and B&Q,.

Absolute best is that those completing the documents were careless and did not read what they were writing.
More likely is that they didn't understand a substantial part of what they were doing, and the documents are worthless.

Many thanks for taking the time to write all that up!

My question now is, what can I do with these docs, if they're proven to be carelessly filled out / wrong? Can I go after the electricians in some way? Is there any point in even doing so? And what do I have to look out for next time I hire an electrician? (again, I can do basic DIY myself but most of the stuff in here means nothing to me!)

 

[NorthernLights811]

I guess the obvious question is who has been making changes to the CU?

Allegedly qualified electricians (contractors).

 

[JohnW2]

My question now is, what can I do with these docs, if they're proven to be carelessly filled out / wrong? Can I go after the electricians in some way? Is there any point in even doing so?

Realistically, I'm not sure that, at least from your point-of-view, there would be much 'point'.

IF (as seems quite likely) it transpires that the EICR was not undertaken satisfactorily, at least it's not a case of work having been done unsatisfactorily that needs to be sorted out or re-done. The very most you could really hope for (personally) would be to get a refund of what was paid for the EICR, but that could well be a struggle (given that we are now many moons down the road) and probably not worth the hassle.

On the other hand, you might feel that you want to try to do something 'on principle', or even in an attempt to protect other customers in the future. That would be a rather different matter but, realistically, an approach which would probably be very unlikley to actually achieve anything useful.

And what do I have to look out for next time I hire an electrician?

That's the $64,000 question, to which there is no really good answer. The standard advice is that 'personal recommendation' is best, but that its of very little real value, since very few members of the general public are in a position to be able to recommend on the basis of the quality (or even correctness/safety) of work - all they can really tell you about are things like politeness, tidiness, punctuality, 'reasonableness' of charges (not necessarily 'very cheap') etc. I suppose the fact that someone has been in business for a long time offers more promise than does a relative newcomer to the profession, but that is far from being a foolproof indicator of anything!

Kind Regards, John