Need main bonding, but is my CU wiring dangerous?!

[Andy™]

noticed the 4293 bit too, no RCD yet it has an RCD main switch... no bonding yet it has 16mm to gas & water... no earth to lighting circuit yet he managed to do a Zs

and then the C1's that have no mention on the observations list

its also a lot older than 20 years,probably 50's/60's

then there is the circuit list... completely out from whats actually there, no reference to the 45a thats there either. those breaks are also 3kA,  not 6 as on report...  the 2 6a & 16a are probably 3871 and not 60898... looks like its all wired in T&E so earth sizes are wrong for some circuits, possibly imperial sizes cables too

entire report is a mess borderline fraud

 

[binky]

I would check that is the case that you are allowed battery powered alarms, they all have to be mains powered now up here, and interlinked so if one sounds, they all sound.

recent change in legislation has removed need for mains powered, which seems rediculous. Landlords have to prove to a new tennat on the day of occupation that the detectors work (which probably involves just pushing the test button), after that it is the tennants problem. Very backwards if you ask me!

With regards to fire, the other joy of a new board woth RCD protection is the slightly enhanced 'fire protection' RCDs offer against defective appliances. It helps protect your property from duff hairdriers, phone chargers etc etc.

 

[phil d]

There are a lot of them about doing dodgy reports,my local doctors surgery had one done and it was pathetic,there was that many codes on it that weren't justified it would take ages to list them,to cap it off in the comments box he'd written that due to the fact it had a wylex fusebox and the bonds to gas and water were in 6 mm he felt the only option was to recommend a rewire! The surgery is a small bungalow and there is no evidence the wiring has ever been altered or messed about with.I went and looked at it as one of the doctors is a friend of mine and she wasn't happy,the circuits tested fine and all the readings were well within the limits.Suffice to say I didn't agree with his recommendations.

 

[kerching]

recent change in legislation has removed need for mains powered, which seems rediculous. Landlords have to prove to a new tennat on the day of occupation that the detectors work (which probably involves just pushing the test button), after that it is the tennants problem. Very backwards if you ask me!

With regards to fire, the other joy of a new board woth RCD protection is the slightly enhanced 'fire protection' RCDs offer against defective appliances. It helps protect your property from duff hairdriers, phone chargers etc etc.

When did they change rules about not needing mains powered detectors?

it must be something i missed whilst 'otherwise occupied'

 

[binky]

recently like just before xmas as part of updates to rental property law. The changes made it compulsory to have smoke alarms, and CO monitors in rooms with solid fuel appliances or gas fires, but seem to have removed the need for mains powered smokes. 1 step forward, 1 step back....

 

[ProDave]

It was 1st December 2015 that the new rules came into force here for new tenancies. Existing tenancies have until 1st December 2016 to comply with the new rules on smoke detectors. But the new rules specifically say they should be mains powered and interlinked.

 

[kerching]

Thanks for that...everyday is a school day!

 

[M107]

I'd be worried if I were the agent & I'd used this bloke for EICR's

Lack of demand figure .....not even a guess.

BS4293 as main switch............Unless it is at the supply head (in which case he is wrong about the lack of rcd) & your meter is a sub meter, i'm afraid he is wrong if he thinks the main switch in the pictures is a BS4293 

States he has inspected & confirmed 10mm² bonding is in place.............. then codes it as missing.

C1 for isolator?.............no comment stating why a C1.

C3 for space in/around cu?............looks ok to me.

C1 for examination of protective devices?..........again no comment on why.

No comment & a PASS for section 13 - 5.8............yet states lighting circuit lacks cpc.

section 13 - 5.12 all given a PASS............yet codes has coded 3 for lack of rcd.

Section 13 - 5.18 code2.........no mention of defects to accessories in observations section.

It looks like he has missed the C1's off of the observations & recommendations that he has noted in section 13.....

Circuit schedule is a thing of fiction:

Incorrect protective devices; listed as 32amp 16amp 6amp 6amp 32amp 32amp..............you actually have 6amp 6amp 6amp 16amp 32amp 45amp

Devices are rated at 3ka not 6ka

Test button operation ticked...........how he has stated no rcd in use.

Lacking three Zs results............he could have even calculated them.

Zs for the lighting yet no cpc?

I'd be asking for money back if I were you.

 

[kerching]

I would be wanting more than my money back!

administrative error?.........what is he?    A politician!

 

[europa]

I'd be worried if I were the agent & I'd used this bloke for EICR's

Lack of demand figure .....not even a guess.

BS4293 as main switch............Unless it is at the supply head (in which case he is wrong about the lack of rcd) & your meter is a sub meter, i'm afraid he is wrong if he thinks the main switch in the pictures is a BS4293 

States he has inspected & confirmed 10mm² bonding is in place.............. then codes it as missing.

C1 for isolator?.............no comment stating why a C1.

C3 for space in/around cu?............looks ok to me.

C1 for examination of protective devices?..........again no comment on why.

No comment & a PASS for section 13 - 5.8............yet states lighting circuit lacks cpc.

section 13 - 5.12 all given a PASS............yet codes has coded 3 for lack of rcd.

Section 13 - 5.18 code2.........no mention of defects to accessories in observations section.

It looks like he has missed the C1's off of the observations & recommendations that he has noted in section 13.....

Circuit schedule is a thing of fiction:

Incorrect protective devices; listed as 32amp 16amp 6amp 6amp 32amp 32amp..............you actually have 6amp 6amp 6amp 16amp 32amp 45amp

Devices are rated at 3ka not 6ka

Test button operation ticked...........how he has stated no rcd in use.

Lacking three Zs results............he could have even calculated them.

Zs for the lighting yet no cpc?

I'd be asking for money back if I were you.

Very comprehensive list - thanks!

Btw, i already complained and got my money back; see earlier post. Now looking for a proper spark in my area to install a new cu.

 

[Essex1]

Personally I would not act on that report at all. It is full of holes. No bonding but states a 'pass' on page 3. Then details the size and ticks as present. 

Also an EICR should not recommend remedial works. It should solely be a condition report backed up by regulation numbers if there are any recommendations to be addressed. Things like 'requires re-wire' or 'CU change needed' should not be on there.  

Another thing. Changing a board and sticking RCD protection on all circuits just because the existing one is old is not acceptable. If the board complies then it should not be recommended to be changed. That is wrong and unethical. 

 

[Essex1]

recent change in legislation has removed need for mains powered, which seems rediculous. Landlords have to prove to a new tennat on the day of occupation that the detectors work (which probably involves just pushing the test button), after that it is the tennants problem. Very backwards if you ask me!

With regards to fire, the other joy of a new board woth RCD protection is the slightly enhanced 'fire protection' RCDs offer against defective appliances. It helps protect your property from duff hairdriers, phone chargers etc etc.

Have you got anything to back that up?  BS5839 would not agree with you on that. 

I am am fully aware letting agents are saying this is acceptable but it is not. The only time battery powered smoke detectors are permitted is in owner/occupied dwellings. 

If the landlord is signing the installation cert under the design section then fine. If you are however, then those battery powered smoke detectors do not comply to British Standards and you could be liable in the event of a fire. 

 

[europa]

I am am fully aware letting agents are saying this is acceptable but it is not. The only time battery powered smoke detectors are permitted is in owner/occupied dwellings. 

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/your-landlords-safety-responsibilities

"provide a smoke alarm on each storey and a carbon monoxide alarm in rooms with a usable fireplace or woodburner"

 

[Adrian]

You can recommend on a eicr .or should I say on an niceic form you can ,there is a tick box that says "The following observations and recommendations for action are made"

 

[Essex1]

https://www.gov.uk/private-renting/your-landlords-safety-responsibilities

"provide a smoke alarm on each storey and a carbon monoxide alarm in rooms with a usable fireplace or woodburner"

My point is they must be mains powered and interlinked. Not just battery powered. 

You can recommend on a eicr .or should I say on an niceic form you can ,there is a tick box that says "The following observations and recommendations for action are made"

It is not appropriate to put personal opinions on any report. 

Last time I checked the NICEIC did not make the rules. 

 

[europa]

My point is they must be mains powered and interlinked. Not just battery powered. 

And my point is that you are incorrect in this instance. They can be battery operated. In England at least, the fire brigade provides free smoke detectors to landlords, and those are certainly not mains operated.

 

[Essex1]

And my point is that you are incorrect in this instance. They can be battery operated. In England at least, the fire brigade provides free smoke detectors to landlords, and those are certainly not mains operated.

I beg to differ. So does BS5839. I would prefer to follow that guidance personally. 

You can recommend on a eicr .or should I say on an niceic form you can ,there is a tick box that says "The following observations and recommendations for action are made"

Guidance from Electrical Safety First (which is part owned by the NICEIC):

"The periodic inspection and testing procedures should identify any damage, deterioration, defects and conditions within the installation that give rise, or potentially give rise, to danger. The procedures should also identify any deficiencies for which remedial action would contribute to a significant improvement in the safety of the electrical installation.

After due consideration, each such observed safety issue should be recorded at the appropriate point in the inspection or test results schedule, and further detailed in the ‘observations’ section of the report.

The observations should be based on the requirements of the edition of BS 7671 current at the time of the inspection, not on the requirements of an earlier edition current at the time the installation was constructed.

Each observation should be written in a clear, accurate and concise manner that is likely to be understood by the person ordering the work. Technical terms should be avoided or explained unless it is known that the recipient is an electrical engineer or electrician, for example.

An electrical installation condition report is intended to be a factual report on the condition of an installation, not a proposal for remedial work. Therefore, each recorded observation should describe a specific defect, omission or item for which improvement is recommended.

The observation should detail what the situation is, and not what is considered necessary to put it right. For example, ‘excessive damage to the consumer unit enclosure’ would be appropriate, whereas ‘consumer unit to be replaced’ would not."

 

[Rob_the_rich]

I beg to differ. So does BS5839. I would prefer to follow that guidance personally. 

it is the law, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111133439/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111133439_en.pdf not just guidance. The law does not specify whether mains or battery I suppose so that landlords can DIY it. If an electrician did the job, on the fire alarm installation certificate it would state "does not comply with bs5839 fitted according to clients instructions" I guess.

 

[M107]

Essex1 you are wrong.

In this case he doesn't have to have mains powered detectors under any sort of regs including  fire safety. 

In fact the detectors don't even have to be linked if they are battery powered, but luckily those clever bods at Aico have these.

http://www.aico.co.uk/Battery-Only-RadioLINK-Alarms.html

Now HMO's, Sheltered and assisted accommodation that's a whole different ballgame 

 

[Essex1]

Essex1 you are wrong.

In this case he doesn't have to have mains powered detectors under any sort of regs including  fire safety. 

In fact the detectors don't even have to be linked if they are battery powered, but luckily those clever bods at Aico have these.

http://www.aico.co.uk/Battery-Only-RadioLINK-Alarms.html

Now HMO's, Sheltered and assisted accommodation that's a whole different ballgame 

I may well be. Has anyone got any proof to back these statements up. Seems strange that a British Standard has a very clear position that battery powered smoke detectors are not acceptable in rented properties but no one is following this standard. 

Yes legislation says that smoke detectors must be fitted. I know that the legislation does not specify which type but it does state that a risk assessment must be carried out in order to determine which type should be fitted. 

So, my arguement is that BS5839 has spent many £££s and many years looking at what type of detectors are suitable for what thpe of properties. It would be very difficult to find a property and carry out a RA that would go against the requirements in BS5839. 

It is my opinion that the only assessment done by a landlord or letting agent is that of cost. So unless a risk assessment states that BS5839 is talking guff then I fail to see how anyone could legitimatly install battery powered smoke detectors in rented properties. BS5839 states that due to the highly likely chance that batteries will go unchanged in rental properties they are deemed as not appropriate. 

Now I suppose you could have a RA that will ensure that all the battery powered smoke detectors are checked by a competent person, employed by the LL every 3 months but we all know that wont happen. 

As ever if someone can show me evidence that BS5839 is incorrect then I am all ears. 

:Salute :Salute :Salute