Landlord EICR advice
Discussion
Mr Pointy said:
119 said:
Seems quite reasonable to me for a new fuse box and repairs on the rest, especially if it s a rental, I d just get it done.
Even if it's been passed, it s still down to you to ensure it is safe if ther have been issues flagged.
Why have the 40A breakers been C2'd for needing downrating? Unless you know the reasons behind all the "faults" being graded as C2 you don't know if it's reasonable or not.Even if it's been passed, it s still down to you to ensure it is safe if ther have been issues flagged.
As I said, its unlikely much electrical maintenance has been done on the property over the years so I would get them done with it then having a clean bill of health.
And realistically, the sparky is covering everything so if the owner doesn’t get it sorted and something happens he is in the clear legally.
Although, there is no reason why the OP doesn’t get another guy around to quote and get his opinion on the findings!
IANAE!
I've just had a slightly dubious EICR fail that looks like a way to charge extra for the sake of it;
.
And a cost to repair;
It's a mains powered Aico smoke alarm in a flat that was rewired in about 2012, and had passed at least one EICR since then, as well as the original installation sign off. I replaced the old smoke alarm 2 or 3 years ago with the new Aico as the old one had expired. I remember that the earth was cut off on the T&E feeding it, so just connected up the L+N as that was all that was connected to the old alarm.
I went back to him with this from Aico;
I then spoke to the sparky, who was the boss of the company whose son had actually done the EICR. He waffled a bit and said that it was the cable that the CPC wasn't connected to an earth. A disagreement ensued where I said that's not what the EICR said, and did he actually measure it, etc. He said he'd check with his son.
He delivered an updated EICR without any remedial work and without that C2 next day to the agent.
.
And a cost to repair;
It's a mains powered Aico smoke alarm in a flat that was rewired in about 2012, and had passed at least one EICR since then, as well as the original installation sign off. I replaced the old smoke alarm 2 or 3 years ago with the new Aico as the old one had expired. I remember that the earth was cut off on the T&E feeding it, so just connected up the L+N as that was all that was connected to the old alarm.
I went back to him with this from Aico;
I then spoke to the sparky, who was the boss of the company whose son had actually done the EICR. He waffled a bit and said that it was the cable that the CPC wasn't connected to an earth. A disagreement ensued where I said that's not what the EICR said, and did he actually measure it, etc. He said he'd check with his son.
He delivered an updated EICR without any remedial work and without that C2 next day to the agent.
Kurtville said:
I have just had an EICR carried out on a property built about 20 yrs ago. I am concerned whether some of this work is necessary, particularly with reference to the RCD on the lighting circuit and the downgrading of the MCB's. We had an EICR 5 years ago and none of these were raised and we have not added anything to the electrical circuits. Also the smoke alarms work but are old is this a reason to declare them a C2 category?
I'm not sure what items 10 to 15 refer to in his list.
If this work is required does the attached quote seem reasonable?
Thanks in advance for any help you can give.
Cant comment on the cable derating, or the price for the remedial work.I'm not sure what items 10 to 15 refer to in his list.
If this work is required does the attached quote seem reasonable?
Thanks in advance for any help you can give.
And as as far as I am aware there is no need to replace the board legally.
However if it was my rental with a 20yo+ split load board, a new consumer unit with the majority if not all circuits on rcbos, feels like money well spend in terms of avoiding emergency callout for a rcd tripping. But once its discretionary spend, obviously it depends on your wider satiation etc.
catfood12 said:
I've just had a slightly dubious EICR fail that looks like a way to charge extra for the sake of it;
.
And a cost to repair;
It's a mains powered Aico smoke alarm in a flat that was rewired in about 2012, and had passed at least one EICR since then, as well as the original installation sign off. I replaced the old smoke alarm 2 or 3 years ago with the new Aico as the old one had expired. I remember that the earth was cut off on the T&E feeding it, so just connected up the L+N as that was all that was connected to the old alarm.
I went back to him with this from Aico;
I then spoke to the sparky, who was the boss of the company whose son had actually done the EICR. He waffled a bit and said that it was the cable that the CPC wasn't connected to an earth. A disagreement ensued where I said that's not what the EICR said, and did he actually measure it, etc. He said he'd check with his son.
He delivered an updated EICR without any remedial work and without that C2 next day to the agent.
If there is no CPC at the smoke alarm, it s going to make it difficult to do a r1 +r2 test. Sounds like a reasonable thing to pick up, whether it warrants a c2?.
And a cost to repair;
It's a mains powered Aico smoke alarm in a flat that was rewired in about 2012, and had passed at least one EICR since then, as well as the original installation sign off. I replaced the old smoke alarm 2 or 3 years ago with the new Aico as the old one had expired. I remember that the earth was cut off on the T&E feeding it, so just connected up the L+N as that was all that was connected to the old alarm.
I went back to him with this from Aico;
I then spoke to the sparky, who was the boss of the company whose son had actually done the EICR. He waffled a bit and said that it was the cable that the CPC wasn't connected to an earth. A disagreement ensued where I said that's not what the EICR said, and did he actually measure it, etc. He said he'd check with his son.
He delivered an updated EICR without any remedial work and without that C2 next day to the agent.
Anyway, at £48 I think I would have just got them to fix it. It hardly sounds like they are trying to rip you off, especially if that involved a revisit.
Seems strange they would remove it from the cert without doing the remedial work. Maybe they did during the test already?
Edited by xstian on Tuesday 6th January 07:36
A little update for you.
I have renewed the smoke alarms myself even though they worked and I couldn't find an expiry date. I have also replaced the broken socket.
After having seen the wiring in the garage I can completely understand why this was failed. The tenant had connected internal and external lights to a double gang light switch and via lots of chocolate blocks then plugged in to a socket. None of the chocolate blocks were protected even by electricians tape. I have ripped all of this out.
I am now going to get a new EICR from someone else. Interestingly we were talking to a letting agent today and asked who they used and without prompting he said they had used one company who were C2'ing everything so they had changed to another electrician. That original company was the same one we used!!
I have renewed the smoke alarms myself even though they worked and I couldn't find an expiry date. I have also replaced the broken socket.
After having seen the wiring in the garage I can completely understand why this was failed. The tenant had connected internal and external lights to a double gang light switch and via lots of chocolate blocks then plugged in to a socket. None of the chocolate blocks were protected even by electricians tape. I have ripped all of this out.
I am now going to get a new EICR from someone else. Interestingly we were talking to a letting agent today and asked who they used and without prompting he said they had used one company who were C2'ing everything so they had changed to another electrician. That original company was the same one we used!!
[quote=Ganglandboss]Electrical Safety First Best Practice Guide 4 reccomends the appropriate codes. It is supported by the BSI, IET, andd all the Approved Domestic Installer schemes.
https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/mi1...
Generally anything that is non-compliant due to changes in regs would be a C3 (improvement recommended), and this is the case for lighting circuits without an RCD in the guide. A notable exception is for circuits without an RCD supplying mobile equipment that may reasonably be expected to be used outdoors, which gets a C2 (potentially dangerous).
1 - This should be a C3
2 - Agreed - C2 (assuming they have calculated the cable size correctly)
3 - Agreed - C2 (assuming they have calculated the cable size correctly)
4 - Agreed - C2
5 - Agreed - C2
6 - Smoke detectors are not within the scope of BS 7671 and this should not be coded in an EICR. It is entirely appropriate to list it as an observation, but it is not grounds to withhold a satisfactory EICR (this is discussed in the Best Practice Guide). You are however required to comply with separate legislation on smoke detectors. I would question what 'old' means. Have they passed the expiry date?
7 - Agreed - FI
8 - Statements such as this should not be included. The inspector should list the defects.
No. 10 onwards is a personal pet hate of mine. They have listed the breach, but give no indication whatsoever as to why. The report has probably been prepared using software, and it has a drop down link to cite the relevant regulation. It is lazy not to add their own description, and unfortunately loads do it.
I strongly suspect No. 10 relates to a plastic consumer unit, which should be a C3.
I suspect No. 11 to 15 are repetition of items in No. 1- 8.
I would conclude there are legitimate items correctly coded at C2, so some remedial work is necessary.
DorsetSparky has advised about the breakers; Eatons do fit. The spark might push back and say you cannot mix manufacturers though. They are the same manufacturer; there has just been changes of ownership and changes of branding, so the new Eatons are fine.
No. 7 will need looking at.
The problem you may have is that even if you argue the incorrect use of codes for item 1 & 6, it is ultimately down to the inspector to make the call.
There is no way a new board is needed though.
https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/mi1...
Generally anything that is non-compliant due to changes in regs would be a C3 (improvement recommended), and this is the case for lighting circuits without an RCD in the guide. A notable exception is for circuits without an RCD supplying mobile equipment that may reasonably be expected to be used outdoors, which gets a C2 (potentially dangerous).
1 - This should be a C3
2 - Agreed - C2 (assuming they have calculated the cable size correctly)
3 - Agreed - C2 (assuming they have calculated the cable size correctly)
4 - Agreed - C2
5 - Agreed - C2
6 - Smoke detectors are not within the scope of BS 7671 and this should not be coded in an EICR. It is entirely appropriate to list it as an observation, but it is not grounds to withhold a satisfactory EICR (this is discussed in the Best Practice Guide). You are however required to comply with separate legislation on smoke detectors. I would question what 'old' means. Have they passed the expiry date?
7 - Agreed - FI
8 - Statements such as this should not be included. The inspector should list the defects.
No. 10 onwards is a personal pet hate of mine. They have listed the breach, but give no indication whatsoever as to why. The report has probably been prepared using software, and it has a drop down link to cite the relevant regulation. It is lazy not to add their own description, and unfortunately loads do it.
I strongly suspect No. 10 relates to a plastic consumer unit, which should be a C3.
I suspect No. 11 to 15 are repetition of items in No. 1- 8.
I would conclude there are legitimate items correctly coded at C2, so some remedial work is necessary.
DorsetSparky has advised about the breakers; Eatons do fit. The spark might push back and say you cannot mix manufacturers though. They are the same manufacturer; there has just been changes of ownership and changes of branding, so the new Eatons are fine.
No. 7 will need looking at.
The problem you may have is that even if you argue the incorrect use of codes for item 1 & 6, it is ultimately down to the inspector to make the call.
There is no way a new board is needed though.
xstian said:
If there is no CPC at the smoke alarm, it s going to make it difficult to do a r1 +r2 test. Sounds like a reasonable thing to pick up, whether it warrants a c2?
Anyway, at £48 I think I would have just got them to fix it. It hardly sounds like they are trying to rip you off, especially if that involved a revisit.
Seems strange they would remove it from the cert without doing the remedial work. Maybe they did during the test already?
Cheers. Great information. That's the reason then, doing an R1+R2 test. That does seem like a thorough EICR. Anyway, at £48 I think I would have just got them to fix it. It hardly sounds like they are trying to rip you off, especially if that involved a revisit.
Seems strange they would remove it from the cert without doing the remedial work. Maybe they did during the test already?
Edited by xstian on Tuesday 6th January 07:36
On your second point, I think they probably did fix it on that visit, as it is a couple of minutes to strip back, test then sleeve and terminate. It does smell like a moneymaking scheme though. Lesson learnt though I guess.
Apologies for the thread hijack OP.
catfood12 said:
Cheers. Great information. That's the reason then, doing an R1+R2 test. That does seem like a thorough EICR.
On your second point, I think they probably did fix it on that visit, as it is a couple of minutes to strip back, test then sleeve and terminate. It does smell like a moneymaking scheme though. Lesson learnt though I guess.
Apologies for the thread hijack OP.
Doing either R1+R2 (so you can calculate Zs) or vice versa isn't a 'thorough' EICR, it's a normal one. It's one of the various tests that you have to do on each circuit, and it isn't optional. If there's a genuine reason why it can't be done, it should be noted down as a limitation of testing (and the result recorded as LIM), but this isn't a get-out-of-jail card, and really every circuit should be tested.On your second point, I think they probably did fix it on that visit, as it is a couple of minutes to strip back, test then sleeve and terminate. It does smell like a moneymaking scheme though. Lesson learnt though I guess.
Apologies for the thread hijack OP.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff