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

[NorthernLights811]

Bumping this thread with an updated pic of my electricity board and relevant wiring.
Off the bat, I see that the labeling is wrong: there's no water heater (GCH) and no electric shower either, not to mention the stickers are offset.

 

[ericmark]

As far back as I can remember I have found PIR's now called EICR's where I don't agree with the findings. I have worried doing reports myself to if things could come back to sting me, and there has been one court case I know about Pembrokeshire County Council Trading Standards v Mark Cummins, trading as M C Electrics however he pleaded guilty, not sure how it would have transpired had he pleaded not guilty?

He was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £1,000 contribution towards costs and £100 statutory surcharge payment. However as far as I can make out, this did not help the new owner, he did not have to correct the faults.

It seems under the English landlord laws the local authority can demand errors are corrected and if not done get them done and bill the owner, court case above was in Wales, but at the end of the day the owner foots the bill, I have not seen a single case where the electrician has been required to pay for some thing to be fixed, where he said it was OK and it was not, when he did the job yes, but not for an EICR which is wrong.

We are advised we need professional indemnity insurance not just liability when doing EICR's but not seen as yet a case where the insurance has needed to pay out, which may explain why so cheap. I had this argument with LABC inspector, if he employs an inspector with less qualifications than me, and I say it's OK and he says it's not, who would the LABC inspector need to consider as being right? So if I hold the lowest of low degrees, the LABC would need to hire an inspector who had at least the same, and people with degrees don't normally do house wiring, likely looking for membership status of the IET.

If the EICR is covered by the scheme membership then they can clearly mediate, but most EICR's are not covered by the scheme membership, I can do an EICR even though I am not a scheme member. I have my C&G 2391 which shows I did have the knowledge required when I passed the exam, but at 72 are you sure dementia has not set in? And it can come at any age.

However the law says you need the bit of paper and you have the bit of paper, and anyone working on an electrical installation should isolate and prove dead before starting work, your CU has three ways to isolate, two RCD's and the isolator and I can't really see how anyone following the rules could be in danger even with wrong labels, they are so blatantly wrong, no one with even a small amount of common sense would take any notice of them, so can't see how they are a potential danger?

 

[NorthernLights811]

Thanks for your detailed comment.
I get it that "anyone can do an EICR", however my problem is that I'm now found in the middle, with an electrician claiming that the current installation is non-compliant (I don't know whether that qualifies as potentially hazardous, I take it from your comment that it's not). So one thing is to be hazardous, and another to "qualify with standards".
In other words, has the second electrician been trying to get some extra £ off me to "correct" some mistake?

 

[Murdochcat]

Thanks for your detailed comment.
I get it that "anyone can do an EICR", however my problem is that I'm now found in the middle, with an electrician claiming that the current installation is non-compliant (I don't know whether that qualifies as potentially hazardous, I take it from your comment that it's not). So one thing is to be hazardous, and another to "qualify with standards".
In other words, has the second electrician been trying to get some extra £ off me to "correct" some mistake?

You need to ask the person saying it’s not compliant to clarify there position in writing

Then post their answers on here

 

[NorthernLights811]

You need to ask the person saying it’s not compliant to clarify there position in writing

Then post their answers on here

Good call, thanks.

 

[chivers67]

Well the new board has mixed manufacturers MCBs (that alone makes it non compliant afaik) and looks awful with the cover on, there's no time delay RCD. I don't understand why whoever fitted the board didn't use BG over Contactum, very odd.

The second electrician seems correct.

 

[ericmark]

Well the new board has mixed manufacturers MCBs (that alone makes it non compliant afaik) and looks awful with the cover on, there's no time delay RCD. I don't understand why whoever fitted the board didn't use BG over Contactum, very odd.

The second electrician seems correct.

I agree as a new installation it would be non compliant. However when we look at the regulations they state at what date and new designes must comply, so there is no requirement to update.

I have heard the argument that unless one can produce the installation certificate giving the date of the design, then it should be considered as new, however when one looks at advice given by the electrical safety council they seem to say that is not required.

But often it is a personal opinion. In my own house I have had electricians fit an UPS or EPS as they call it, and as part of this the supply to the central heating has had RCD protection removed, I personally feel one should not remove the protection, the protection was added three years ago, and it just seems wrong to remove it. However I am struggling to find a regulation I can quote as being broken, it is not on a socket it is a FCU, the supply to it is surface but the supply from it is buried within the wall. I think it should have been a RCD FCU but since the central heating was installed around 2004 so designed before that date, can I force the issue? Likely I will just buy a RCD FCU and fit it.

But I have a NAPIT compliance certificate which was available for down load two days before the job was done, work that one out.

The main reason why it should have a RCD I feel is during a power cut the supply is TT, but I have the compliance certificate.

 

[ebee]

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.

Often the case. In fact more often than not IMHO

 

[JohnW2]

But I have a NAPIT compliance certificate which was available for down load two days before the job was done, work that one out.

I might be inclined to ask NAPIT about that one!

The main reason why it should have a RCD I feel is during a power cut the supply is TT, but I have the compliance certificate.

Has a TT earth been installed for the UPS? Is one side of the output of the UPS connected to the installation's 'earth'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[chivers67]

I agree as a new installation it would be non compliant. However when we look at the regulations they state at what date and new designs must comply, so there is no requirement to update.

From what I'm reading the board was completely taken out (or all circuits) and then refitted - the right hand RCD has been reconfigured with 3 mcbs and the left now has 6. The labels are all over the place with gaps in between the MCBS whoever installed it was wrong to say it was satisfactory.

Surely the Landlord is responsible for this anyway rather than a tenant?

 

[ebee]

Well the landord is always responsible for the house he rents to the Tennant.
The houseowner is always responsible for his house.
In both cases they might ask a tradesman to do work they are (hopefully) competent to do because they are not competent to do this themselves.

 

[NorthernLights811]

Well the new board has mixed manufacturers MCBs (that alone makes it non compliant afaik) and looks awful with the cover on, there's no time delay RCD. I don't understand why whoever fitted the board didn't use BG over Contactum, very odd.

The second electrician seems correct.

What's wrong with a mix of BG and Contactum though? Surely both of them do the same thing.

 

[chivers67]

You could argue that having different manufactured MCBs there could be an undue strain on one make as they don't fit exactly the same when they are installed on the busbar - this could be one reason why the left hand MCBS aren't as neatly aligned as they could be. You asked for advice and any electrician could always be critical of another's work but in this instance I think it's justified for a number of reasons.

Below is the current Reg on the matter

536.4.203 Integration of devices and components. The relevant part of the BS EN 61439 series shall be applied to the integration of mechanical and electrical devices and components, e.g. circuit-breakers, control devices, busbars into an empty enclosure or existing low voltage assembly. In low voltage assemblies to the BS EN 61439 series, e.g. consumer units, distribution boards, incorporated devices and components shall only be those declared suitable according to the assembly manufacturer’s instructions or literature. NOTE 1: The use of individual components complying with their respective product standard(s) does not indicate their compatibility when installed with other components in a low voltage switchgear and controlgear assembly. NOTE 2: Incorporated components inside the assembly can be from different manufacturers. It is essential that all incorporated components should have had their compatibility for the final enclosed arrangements verified by the original manufacturer of the assembly and be assembled in accordance with their instructions e.g. the consumer unit, distribution board manufacturer. The original manufacturer is the organization that carried out the original design and the associated verification of the low voltage switchgear and control gear assembly to the relevant part of the BS EN 61439 series. If an assembly deviates from its original manufacturer’s instructions, or includes components not included in the original verification, the person introducing the deviation becomes the original manufacturer with the corresponding obligations

 

[hllns]

What's wrong with a mix of BG and Contactum though? Surely both of them do the same thing.

As Flameport has said BG MCBs aren't hard to come by so they've done it the wrong way untidily when it would have been easy to do it the "right" way should ring alarm bells about the stuff you can't see.

 

[Murdochcat]

Both BG and Contactum are very readily available - so why a mixture was fired is a sign of laziness

Pure and simply