EICR RCD question

[Tarmfield]

Hi,

I just got an EICR completed for a rental property and it has a C2 on the summary page for 4.18 RCD protection, I have a couple of questions n this one as i think they are potentially looking for work to do. The main body of the report in the details section the same 4.18 is listed as a C3, not a C2, also the text in the summary has it listed as recommended for improvement, it almost seems as if someone has changed the C3 to a C2 and not done it properly?

1. Is a split load box with all socket circuits RCD protected a C3 or a C2 (circuits not protected by RCD are lighting and hard wired cooker)
   
2. Is it a valid EICR output to have a different rating n the inspection schedule to the summary page?
   
3. Is the text on the summary page generated by the code - would a genuine C2 have wording of Potentially dangerous rather than recommended improvement?
   

Images attached of sections of report and CU - which they have quoted a replacement cost of 985 +VAT to replace, also seems a bit steep?

 

[Tarmfield]

I can attach anything by the looks of it - looks like i need 10 posts? 

 

[Tarmfield]

Images here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pzn23b711gk3eq2/Summary - HL.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lzzo9f93nq48jpx/InkedDetail close up_LI.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zym4gsf3kfsyjoc/PXL_20210424_135436671.jpg?dl=0

 

[Murdoch]

Sticking my neck out here I would say that the C2 you have should really be a C3

Take a look through this guide

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/2149/bpg4-1.pdf

you certainly don’t need a new fuseboard

 

[Tarmfield]

That was my thought, then looking at the fact that its a C3 on the details and the text on the summary page says Recommended improvement, but has been amended to a C2 got my suspicions up that someone may have either mistakenly transcribed it, or worse, upped it on the summary but not changed the wording to generate an expensive, and likely unnecessary CU replacement

job?

Is anyone familiar with the SW - does it autogenerate the descriptions on the summary sheet?

 

[Murdoch]

That was my thought, then looking at the fact that its a C3 on the details and the text on the summary page says Recommended improvement, but has been amended to a C2 got my suspicions up that someone may have either mistakenly transcribed it, or worse, upped it on the summary but not changed the wording to generate an expensive, and likely unnecessary CU replacement

View attachment 11393 job?

Is anyone familiar with the SW - does it autogenerate the descriptions on the summary sheet?

not familiar with that software but you should question this IMHO

 

[Sharpend]

Personally in this instance I would contact their registration body technical line and ask the question, you then have something to go back to the company with that relates to them. This way they’d be less inclined to blag you. 

 

[Tarmfield]

That's my thinking as well, I have questioned it, their response is that the detail (C3 on P8) is wrong - but that doesn't sit right with me looking at the description text which would align to a C3 item (Like every line above it for stickers??? does and are allC3)

The cynic in me says someone has changed it to generate work, the benefit of the doubt version is it's a typo or error on the summary and unintentional.

It seems like it was definitely coded as a C3 originally and the summary text was generated showing this, but this has been changed after the inspection to the C2 without changing the other fields which smacks of work generation, or something being changed after the fact.

How could I tell which is the relevant registration body to to contact - there is a registration number in the report, but no body or organization listed?

 

[Sharpend]

Did they have anything with NICEIC/Napit/Stroma/ECA ? 
you could look them up and see if they have a website that will give any details of their registration body? 
 

I would ask them if the CU complies with the regulations at time of install, then ask if the EICR is retrospectively applied with regards to Current regulations to an existing installation. 
 

it is my belief that the EICR is carried out to current regulation, which means most properties will not have a current regulation compliant installation, however that in itself does not make it an unsatisfactory report. This is where so many modern sparks do not know how to apply the relevance of the report codings. 
is your board compliant to today -No

is your board any less safe than when installed- Not based on their report. 
would it be wise to recommend an upgrade- probably for increased safety aspects

is it necessary for it to be upgraded - no 

as extracted from Murdochs link 

Code C3 - Improvement recommended
This code should be used to indicate that, whilst an observed deficiency is not considered to be a source of immediate or potential danger, improvement would contribute to a significant enhancement of the safety of the electrical installation.

 

[Sharpend]

Following on from Murdochs link:

Code C3 - Improvement recommended
 •
Absence of RCD protection for a socket-outlet that is unlikely to supply portable or mobile equipment for use outdoors, does not serve
a location containing a bath or shower, and the use of which is otherwise not considered by the inspector to result in potential danger. (Note: Code C2 would apply if the circuit supplied a socket-outlet in a location containing a bath or shower in accordance with Regulation 701.512.3)
Absence of RCD protection for cables installed at a depth of less than 50 mm from a surface of a wall or partition where the cables do not incorporate an earthed metallic covering, are not enclosed in earthed metalwork, or are not mechanically protected against penetration by nails and the like.
Absence of RCD protection for AC final circuits supplying luminaires in domestic household premises
Absence of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower where satisfactory supplementary bonding is present

And:

Items worthy of note that do not warrant a classification code (These comments should be recorded on the EICR in the observations section)
 •
•
•
•
Presence of a consumer unit or similar switchgear made from combustible material (e.g. plastic) that is not inside a non- combustible enclosure and which is NOT:
Located under wooden staircase, or
within a sole route of escape from the premises (Note: If unsatisfactory connections are found during inspection, this would warrant a code C2 classification to be recorded

 

 

[Tarmfield]

Thanks for that - I will check out their website and see who they are registered with - the report was arranged through British Gas but looks like it was outsourced to a local firm.

They quoted 985 +VAT for the repairs, which is essentially replace the current CU with a compliant one, their first response  was "I have looked at the report and there is a lack of RCD protection so to provide this the electrician will need to supply and install a new fuseboard with full RCD protection" when i queried the lack of they came back with "It does not have enough and your existing board cannot incorporate any more."

Does 985 +VAT seem expensive to replace a consumer unit with 9 circuits and easy access (Its in a downstairs cupboard, easily accessible) and are they correct in saying the current board cannot have any RCD added - it seems there is currently at least 3 spare slots in the CU (pictured below)

 

[Sharpend]

I wouldn’t pay that for a board change.

I would refer them to Murdochs link and highlight the areas I’ve listed and ask them for their comments. 
If they are enlisted by BG you can bet they’ll be NICEIC or Napit registered. 

 

[Murdoch]

Absence of RCD protection for cables installed at a depth of less than 50 mm from a surface of a wall or partition where the cables do not incorporate an earthed metallic covering, are not enclosed in earthed metalwork, or are not mechanically protected against penetration by nails and the like.
Absence of RCD protection for AC final circuits supplying luminaires in domestic household premises
Absence of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower where satisfactory supplementary bonding is present

C3?

Thanks for that - I will check out their website and see who they are registered with - the report was arranged through British Gas but looks like it was outsourced to a local firm.

They quoted 985 +VAT for the repairs, which is essentially replace the current CU with a compliant one, their first response  was "I have looked at the report and there is a lack of RCD protection so to provide this the electrician will need to supply and install a new fuseboard with full RCD protection" when i queried the lack of they came back with "It does not have enough and your existing board cannot incorporate any more."

Does 985 +VAT seem expensive to replace a consumer unit with 9 circuits and easy access (Its in a downstairs cupboard, easily accessible) and are they correct in saying the current board cannot have any RCD added - it seems there is currently at least 3 spare slots in the CU (pictured below)

View attachment 11394

The 5 MCBs could be replaced with RCBO 's 

So I question the competence of the company who seem to be sacrficing technical knowledge for profit

 

[Sharpend]

C3?

It was lifted from your link as a C3. 

 

[Fleeting]

There are either some typos on there or it has just been compiled incorrectly. The C3 is allotted to 4.18 which is rcds for fault protection, not likely to be applicable. The Code should be against 4.19 which they have allotted a "pass".

Observations also refer to fault protection which I would say is incorrect unless ADS is not satisfied by the existing protective devices, it should be additional protection. 

Can you show the schedule of test results.

 

[Fleeting]

If you take the Report at face value and it's literal interpretation and assuming ADS is satisfied as it stands then that observation requires no remedial works. This is entirely down to an incorrectly compiled Report. 

 

[Murdoch]

If you take the Report at face value and it's literal interpretation and assuming ADS is satisfied as it stands then that observation requires no remedial works. This is entirely down to an incorrectly compiled Report. 

Agree - but this poor EICR is so typical of the carp reports produced by too many sparks

 

[Sidney]

I'm going to stick my neck out and say 4.18 doesn't even apply in this situation, depending upon the earthing arrangements for the installation.

They more than likely mean RCDs with 30mA for additional protection for lighting circuits in a domestic property. This would only normally be coded as a C3.

RCBOs are readily available for these boards at around £25-30 each.

 

[Fleeting]

As it stands though the Report is not suggesting additional rcd protection so at face value it is almost certainly technically incorrect.

 

[boltonsparky]

Unless they're being really pedantic as new labels are slightly different wording and dimensions. You have the labels they've said you don't.

As for being a C2 and a C3 for the same thing it's most likely poor form filling. Some software auto generates codes, likely a C3 then they've upped it to a C2 in their observations as that's what they feel/want the code to be. 

No RCD protection for the circuits you don't have RCD protection for is a C3 for me. Surprised they haven't tried the highly volatile plastic consumer unit that could spontaneously burst into flames at any moment observation on there.