EICR Unsatisfactory - need advice

[Andy™]

Problems with EICR's is that if you inspect to the 17th ed AMD 3, then nearly ALL properties could fail an inspection - which is sheer madness.

but you always inspect to current regs

 

[Murdoch]

but you always inspect to current regs

Sorry mate I could have worded that better... Yes inspected to  current regs but it seems a lot of inspectors give out C2,s where C3 should be used....

 

[Andy™]

definitely. just because it was done to 16th doesn't mean its not dangerous, yet many just code everything that doesnt comply as C2 regardless

 

[J Gough]

There's a redacted copy of the EICR at the link below, apologies it took a while to get it here.

http://imgur.com/a/5Xkc4

 

[ProDave]

It was a BIG mistake removing the old C4
 

 

[steptoe]

It was a BIG mistake removing the old C4
 

Oh yes, 

 

[Andy™]

There's a redacted copy of the EICR at the link below, apologies it took a while to get it here.

http://imgur.com/a/5Xkc4

im surprised he hasnt given a C2 for the high earth on the sockets, should be around .89 not 1.85. either that or he has fat fingers.

the next test date should be more than 3 month too, generally 5-10 years for a house. on the plus side, the buyer will have no valid EICR in 3 months time

wonder how he knows the service fuse is 60a

 

[ProDave]

 

There's a redacted copy of the EICR at the link below, apologies it took a while to get it here.

http://imgur.com/a/5Xkc4

Let's pick this to bits a bit more.

5Hz supply

PFC calculated at 250V yet it's quoted as a 230V supply

1000A main switch

Agree with Andy, Loop reading for socket earth a bit high, at least a FI


 

 

[Sidewinder]

U is 230V also.

 

[sprocketflup]

How come he has put most of his disconnection times as 5 seconds, yet the lighting as 0.4?

 

[Sidewinder]

PD,

Don't get where he calculated the PFC @ 250V?

816*0.29=236.6

So, I would say that the PFC & Ze are both readings directly from his MFT, thus done at the instantaneous voltage seen when they were measured.

 

[Sidewinder]

All of those circuits should have a 0.4s disconnection time stated, and inspected to.

 

[Murdoch]

Aren't those disconnection times AMD2? (or have I had too much to drink!)

 

[Sidewinder]

AMD2 was only to do with EV's IIRC.

AMD 1 was all 0.4s too.

I only have the green & yellow books on PC.

Yeah, just checked Amd2 only to do with EV's.

 

[Murdoch]

And aren't those breakers BS 3871? yet the EICR says 60698

 

[Doc Hudson]

And aren't those breakers BS 3871? yet the EICR says 60698

And they are all listed as 'Type B', yet clearly state on the front of the MCB 'Type 1'.  I would have great doubts about the competence of the person who has complied that report, It looks like someone who knows how to press a few buttons to get a couple of test readings but has no idea about what should go in a lot of the other boxes. So just copies them off another unrelated job.

Doc H. 

 

[Murdoch]

I wonder if this is just another of these £50 "drive past" EICR's that aren't worth the paper they are printed on....

Would the OP be able to indicate the cost of this EICR and how long the person was in the property?

 

[Doc Hudson]

In addition to the earlier link provided by Sidewinder regarding guidance for the classifications codes C1,C2,C3, one of the most common guidance books recognised by anyone undertaking an electrical qualification, is the On-Site-Guide. (as used and referenced during C&G courses and I believe still permitted in open book C&G exams?). In which various model forms are shown, with examples of typical information they could contain. It can be seen from the page copied below that the OSG example suggests a C3 not a C2 for lack of RCD protection when compiling an EICR following periodic inspection of an installation.

Doc H.

.

 

[Rob_the_rich]

All of those circuits should have a 0.4s disconnection time stated, and inspected to.

Except the 40A shower circuit, 5 seconds.

The max Zs stated are to an earlier amendment, do not include the Cmin adjustment.

pfc on test result sheet says 0.816A

primary supply conductor material=16

There is no requirement for an RCD to provide fault protection on circuits 1&3, only for additional protection.

OP says that the report was done last year, so has expired already

Edit; so perhaps was correct to put max Zs as earlier amendment, depending on the date.

 

[Sidewinder]

Didn't notice the 40A cct Rob, biggest I noticed was 32, hence the comment.

So if there is a 40, then you are probably correct.