Where Should the EICR Have Started?

[DIYWell]

Curious one ...

I was chatting with a friend who had an EICR done on an upstairs flat he wants to rent out. Meter cupboard is inside the kitchen and has a meter connected directly to the CU and the various circuits spider away from there. Sparky does his thing and nothing untoward was noted.

Now where I'm puzzled is that the meter is a slave meter, and clearly identifiable as one. Mate is billed for useage by the building's owner. The building's supply comes in at the basement, has the smart meter in it, and the supply splits in three; ground floor, first floor and second. Each can be isolated via big 1970s 100A Frankenstein type switches.

So should the EICR have started at the basement, tested the umteen meter long connection from smart meter to slave meter and then the circuits? Spark couldn't have accessed the basement and didn't note it as a limitation.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Edit - Just noticed you are in Scotland so might be different.

 

[Murdochcat]

Its up to the inspector and person ordering the work to agree the scope ......... before a date is agreed

 

[SUNRAY]

Like EFL I'm not familiar with Scotch lesislation so my views (and this is only my expectation rather than legislation) are based on my experiences in England.

The main question is: Who owns the meter?

If these 3 services are rental properties and all owned by the building owner then it is the owners (landlords) responsibility to arrange all of this. I'll make a guess there are illuminated communal stairs and possibly heating and sockets in those areas. In my view that represents 4 systems and the 3 submains are very likely included in the landlords 4th EICR (especially if the cable route is within the communal area).

If the 3 properties are leasehold I'd hope (including crossing fingers and toes as I guess) there is some content in the lease to cover it but generally the lessee is responsible for anything within the area described on the lease, with the lessor being responsible for everything excluded from the areas by the multiple leases. Effectively this equates to the same 4 systems described above.

However all of this may so easily be altered by contract/lease/local verbal agreement etc. my experience is of working on such systems and as a private landlord but as stated exclusively in England.

 

[ericmark]

Reading the English landlord laws, these do not match the IET publications on how and what is tested by whom and when. What one has to remember is the people who wrote the regulations and advise are not the same people who write the laws.

Basic thing is all should be inspected, but the who and when varies. Broadly speaking we have two groups, the installation, and the current using equipment, traditionally the lights are included in the installation even though they use current, the installation can include many buildings, and it would be silly to try to do it all together, so it is common to split it into what is covered by a distribution unit, (DB) and a consumer unit is a type tested DB, and the exam for inspection and testing is split as well, so the administration is independent to the actual testing.

You have to remember the rules have been designed for all, not just domestic, so it is often up to the building manager to say who does what, and where I have worked the testing of equipment with a plug was done by semi-skilled labour, so often items like hand driers were tested while doing the installation inspection and testing, however would be recorded on the equipment test sheets.

Some items were special, vending machines often the electrician had no access to, so were tested by the company they were hired from.

Even in the home, it is often the case that boilers etc, will be under a service contract, same can apply with other equipment, I had one for my fridge/freezer for example.

This is where errors are often made, the person responsible for building maintenance has a list of who does what, and he ticks the box to say the item is under service contract, but the person who does the contract, will only respond when called out, and do repairs only, he does not actually service the item, even when called a service contract.

It is only when something goes wrong, and the paperwork is requested, that some one realises they have not been doing what was expected, my son worked for a testing firm, for a short time, and he said the excuse used was "Oh that was done by Fred Bloggs, we had to let him go." and the turn over of labour made it very hard to point fingers.

Lets face it, if some one is sacked, one is hardly in a position to say did you inspect the fridge. I know my wife has said how my last firm has phoned asking this or that, and her answer was he is in Algeria, Falklands, Hong Kong, etc. He is due on leave date, but the chances I will remember by time I return is slim.

I have a receipt for my boiler service, it does not detail what was checked, only work done. I have seen where some one has put paint on grease nipples to see if greased, we thought it was funny to charge for new grease nipples as old ones had been painted.

 

[Taylortwocities]

If I understand this right, the supply arrives at each flat, and each has its own consumer unit for the separate circuits in each flat.
In that case, the EICR will be only from the presentation of the supply at the flat itself. In the normal way the electrician with document the EFLI at the input point. Ze would be at the incoming supply down in the dungeon, and is not the concern of the tester.
He needs to determine what he is presented with up at the flat. As the flat is a sub main, this is often referred to as Zdb.
Circuit impedance value (Zs) would then be Zdb + (R1+R2).