- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,744
- Reaction score
- 931
I've been handed an "unsatisfactory" EICR and been asked to quote for the remedials.
The trouble is most of the "faults" I don't agree with. I just wanted to run it past you lot to see if my thinking is correct:
Listed faults (all C2's, i'm ignoring the C3's) followed by my coments:
* Heating consumer unit fed by pvc cable which is not covered by rcd. 415.1.1
Surface mounted double unsulated meter tails in meter cupboard no rcd needed.
*Main comsumer unit no rcd protection on lighting circuit. 415.1.1
It was wired to 16th and has not been altered, no need to upgrade or add rcd's
* Room thermostat not earthed.
The lazy git didn't bother to re connect the CPC hanging there close to the earth terminal. It would have been quicker to re connect it than type the fault on the EICR
* toilet light fed from 2 core 0.5mm flex
It's actually 3 core 1mm flex. Niot ideal but at most a C3. In any case it's a class 2 fitting so it doesn't need an earth.
*Grommet missing from consumer unit
Again it wa probably quicker for me to put a grommet in that it would have been to type the fault.
*Bathroom fan heater switch inside the bathroom.
At last a real fault, I'll move the FCU outside and put a flex outlet plate in the bathroom.
* Coordination between conductors and overload protective devices (433.1, 532.1) is in a potentially dangerous condition
MCB sizes with respect to cable sizes looks fine to me. I have asked for clarification what he means.
* RCD(s) provided for additional prtection is in a potentially dangerous condition
rcd looks physically fine to me and tests okay.
* Correct identification of circuit details and protective devices is in a potentially dangerous condition.
Looks correctly labelled to me and even if the labels were wrong is that "dangerous"? at most C3
*For cables concealed in walls at a depth of less than 50mm (522.6.202, 522.6.203) is in a potentially dangerous condition
Again he's calling for rcd protection on cables installed in a wall to 16th
*For cables under floors, above ceilings or in walls/partitions protected agains damage (522.6.204) is in a potentially dangeros condition
Again harking on about rretro fitting rcd protecion.
There are a cpuple of other genuine faults like broken and dangerous outside lights.
To me it sounds like he's either ill informed that changes to the regulations are not retrospective or he's just plain trying to scare the owner into an unnecerssary consumer unit change to give rcd protection to everything.
He missed the loose earth on the water bond clamp, and the loose eaths in the heater consumer unit, and the taped up disconnected immersion heater cable.
On the schedule of test results all curcuits tested within limits with good Zs figures and good I/R readings.
MY "task" is to convince him that only the genuine faults need rectifying and get him to issue a satisfactory eicr after I have fixed the real faults. My customer doesn't just want me to issue an eicr.
So after I have fixed ther genuine faults I have to write to the original guy telling him why I think he's wrong, which is pretty much as I have stated.
What do you guys think?
The trouble is most of the "faults" I don't agree with. I just wanted to run it past you lot to see if my thinking is correct:
Listed faults (all C2's, i'm ignoring the C3's) followed by my coments:
* Heating consumer unit fed by pvc cable which is not covered by rcd. 415.1.1
Surface mounted double unsulated meter tails in meter cupboard no rcd needed.
*Main comsumer unit no rcd protection on lighting circuit. 415.1.1
It was wired to 16th and has not been altered, no need to upgrade or add rcd's
* Room thermostat not earthed.
The lazy git didn't bother to re connect the CPC hanging there close to the earth terminal. It would have been quicker to re connect it than type the fault on the EICR
* toilet light fed from 2 core 0.5mm flex
It's actually 3 core 1mm flex. Niot ideal but at most a C3. In any case it's a class 2 fitting so it doesn't need an earth.
*Grommet missing from consumer unit
Again it wa probably quicker for me to put a grommet in that it would have been to type the fault.
*Bathroom fan heater switch inside the bathroom.
At last a real fault, I'll move the FCU outside and put a flex outlet plate in the bathroom.
* Coordination between conductors and overload protective devices (433.1, 532.1) is in a potentially dangerous condition
MCB sizes with respect to cable sizes looks fine to me. I have asked for clarification what he means.
* RCD(s) provided for additional prtection is in a potentially dangerous condition
rcd looks physically fine to me and tests okay.
* Correct identification of circuit details and protective devices is in a potentially dangerous condition.
Looks correctly labelled to me and even if the labels were wrong is that "dangerous"? at most C3
*For cables concealed in walls at a depth of less than 50mm (522.6.202, 522.6.203) is in a potentially dangerous condition
Again he's calling for rcd protection on cables installed in a wall to 16th
*For cables under floors, above ceilings or in walls/partitions protected agains damage (522.6.204) is in a potentially dangeros condition
Again harking on about rretro fitting rcd protecion.
There are a cpuple of other genuine faults like broken and dangerous outside lights.
To me it sounds like he's either ill informed that changes to the regulations are not retrospective or he's just plain trying to scare the owner into an unnecerssary consumer unit change to give rcd protection to everything.
He missed the loose earth on the water bond clamp, and the loose eaths in the heater consumer unit, and the taped up disconnected immersion heater cable.
On the schedule of test results all curcuits tested within limits with good Zs figures and good I/R readings.
MY "task" is to convince him that only the genuine faults need rectifying and get him to issue a satisfactory eicr after I have fixed the real faults. My customer doesn't just want me to issue an eicr.
So after I have fixed ther genuine faults I have to write to the original guy telling him why I think he's wrong, which is pretty much as I have stated.
What do you guys think?
Last edited by a moderator:
