EICR spurious coding again.

Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
14,650
Reaction score
811
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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if the regs are not retrospective those issues should still be recorded on the EICR.  Granted only a C3 and not a C2.

 
I would have no problem with them being noted as a C3 and the installation being rated as "satisfactory" once the other real faults are fixed.  But insisiting that no rcd protection is all C2's and therefore makes the install "unsatisfactory" is what I am taking issue with. By doing that he's effectively saying you must have a new CU if you want "satisfactory"

Sockets, cooker, shower and immersion heater are all protected by a working rcd.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You and I both know that the guy is vying for a CU swap, unfortunately because you don't have the P up there you can't even have the scam assessor involved, so he is just taking the P himself? 

Other than a letter or conversation with him to give him understanding I don't see what your other options are other than to quote as per requested? 

 
is the heater fan switch in the zones, or just in the bathroom?

I don't do EICRs, but of those I have seen, the majority I disagree with. Most seem to be pushing for replacement CUs, or at least a long list of remedials.

When you phone them to query things you just get abuse. Sad really.

 
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

...................................

Again harking on about rretro fitting rcd protecion.


Why doesn't he save himself all that effort and say, 'Plastic CU needs replacing with a metal one to comply with Amendment 3 (to sound professional)'? :slap

 
Why doesn't he save himself all that effort and say, 'Plastic CU needs replacing with a metal one to comply with Amendment 3 (to sound professional)'? :slap
He DID mention that but only gave it a C3 "Condition of enclosures in terms of fire rating (431.1.201, 544.1.2) is recommended for improvement"

I'm surprised it's not a C2 like all the others.

 
I'm sure that you don't / can't condemn every installation you see that wasn't done to the 17th edition  Amnd 3 .

It would mean that on 1st Jan this year , every house in the country became  " Unsatisfactory"  on EICR ,s for not having a metal board .

Although anything done previously to the 16th should , perhaps , be marked as "Needs Upgrading . 

 
Top