HELP! EICR advice please

[a111an]

I wonder if any electricians can offer some advice? I feel that I may be getting taken for a ride. I rent out a 2 bedroom flat built in 2005 that has just needed an EICR. The letting agents have managed this for me and the report has come back as failed with a draft quote to pass the EICR that consists of a new consumer unit and other bits for £1173.60!

My main concerns in the report are that I have the following C2's.

A) Additional RCD protection is required for circuits supplying outdoor equipment...

The main sockets are on RCD protection, but it's a 3rd floor flat. I can't see why outdoor equipment would be mentioned?

B) Consumer unit is not fire rated...

Looking at the report it is a C2 on the Observations page, but on the Inspection schedule page, it's a C3. Could it be both?

Additionally to the C2's above, they are charging me to fix an open circuit on the earth, would they not have tested all the sockets on the test and fixed them, if required, as they went along?

I have also wondered what 'Replace fixed bathroom fittings' at £154+vat would be, any ideas?.


I have gone back to letting agent to pass my questions and concerns over to the electrical company and they have just responded with the following:

We have reviewed the EICR again and stand by what we have advised, the parts where the LL suggested the work doesn't need doing due to the regs is a really grey area, it depends on the engineer as to whether they would recommend the works or not - and rather we say they do not need work and an issue were to arise, that would leave us liable for not recommending these works be completed.

We might be airing on the side of caution, but we would rather be safe than sorry.

Is this a fair response, and not to answer my questions above? Does the report and draft quote look fair? EICR has already cost me £200.



Thank you for taking the time to read the above.

 

[loz2754]

I’m not a big criticiser of other people reports, but...
C2 for plastic board -wrong Should be C3 or no code.
C2 For out of date smokes - wrong Should be no code. Smokes are not part of our regs. Only the hard wired connections and electrical safety are what we are establishing. Yes it’s worth a mention but that’s all.
C2 for no RCD for circuit passing through room containing bath or shower. wrong unless there is no supplementary bonding present. This was not mentioned therefore we cannot judge.
C2 for sockets that may be used for outdoor equipment. Correct, but as you said it has RCD protection.

something isn’t right with this one. Get a second opinion.

Supplementary bonding is ticked as ok

 

[Doomed]

Get another electrician to check his findings (oh, you have done that by posting here) - they will probably tell you that the codings are too harse. Then get someone else to quote for what is actually needed .
(Note to self - must put my prices up!)

 

[Baddegg]

If the letting agent has arranged it the spark ain’t getting the £200, you’ve paid for the privilege of the letting agent to arrange it for you? It’s another source of revenue for them!.....the spark is treating it as a loss leader and makes his end up in the repairs, they are in it together I’m afraid,

 

[SJD]

If the letting agent has arranged it the spark ain’t getting the £200, you’ve paid for the privilege of the letting agent to arrange it for you? It’s another source of revenue for them!.....the spark is treating it as a loss leader and makes his end up in the repairs, they are in it together I’m afraid,

To add to that, some (not all) letting agents deduct a "contractors commission" from the amount they pay to the contractor. I used to do work for one such agent. I simply inflated my prices so that after the deduction, I received what I would have normally charged. That will apply to the remedial work as well.

If this is the case, the agent has little to gain by querying the report, other than a reduced cut of the commission for any work needed.

 

[Baddegg]

I’m just shocked that an estate agent (the last true bastion of integrity) would take what is essentially a well meaning price of legislation and use it to squeeze a few more pounds out of they landlords!......??? parasites!

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I’m just shocked that an estate agent (the last true bastion of integrity) would take what is essentially a well meaning price of legislation and use it to squeeze a few more pounds out of they landlords!......??? parasites!

They provide an essential service, helping to relieve landlords of all that back-breaking work that they might otherwise have to do themselves.

 

[DPG]

They provide an essential service, helping to relieve landlords of all that back-breaking work that they might otherwise have to do themselves.

I used to use a letting agent years ago. They just caused delays and expense. Much better off doing it yourself, but obviously that's not as practical if you don't live near the property.

 

[Baddegg]

I had to go and look at a light last week that wasn’t working....niceic eicr the day before said all was fine!......I explained that due to the nature of the fault I doubted that it had been ok the day before, light not working and voltage on the neutral with older cabling at the switch and newer at the light itself, plastered ceiling and another flat upstairs with no access......caused no end of problems for the estate agents considering they’d charged twice as much as I quoted and didn’t actually get permission from the landlord to do the eicr!.....guess who got the repair works ?.....and the tenant says to me “I don’t care what it costs the letting agent is paying” ?

 

[UNG]

I really think there are fully qualified sparks doing EICR’s that don’t know what they are doing. An EICR is totally different to any other certification we are trained to do.
anyone who hasn’t taken the appropriate course should not be doing them and I think they need to be more scrutinised To ensure they are to an appropriate uniformed standard.

We have a problem at the moment in so far as the new laws regarding rental properties and eicrs.
i have to say I absolutely agree with the new laws.

The problem is There are thousands of landlords requiring EICRs now. I have a list of 23 to do before April 1st. I haven’t given any of them a date of completion yet as I am going to do them one at a time and then do there remedial if necessary before going on to the next. This is between all the other jobs I have booked and emergency calls I am getting in.

I am not committing to any more EICRs And have turned down over 5 in last 2 weeks. This means they will use anyone Qualified or not.
In your case a111an I think you have a fully qualified spark, but he hasn’t done an EICR course and there is not requirment to do so.

I really think there are sparks who think they are fully qualified doing EICR’s and are so far out of their depth that they don’t know what they are doing

IMO the 2391 , 2394/5 has little value since the fast track training organisations got hold of it and turned it into a paper excerise that generates cash, the fact that you can pass the exam with no real site work experience clearly demonstrates this.

The number of similar and recurring threads that this forum is seeing clearly indicates that the electrical industry has a problem with inspection and testing if it not landlords asking questions of their EICR it is "sparks" trying to justify whether a problem found while doing an EICR is a C1, C2 or C3.
Add to this that with every new edition or amendment of the regs most installations are rendered non compliant whilst remaining perfectly safe for continued use

 

[dodger421]

I really think there are sparks who think they are fully qualified doing EICR’s and are so far out of their depth that they don’t know what they are doing

IMO the 2391 , 2394/5 has little value since the fast track training organisations got hold of it and turned it into a paper excerise that generates cash, the fact that you can pass the exam with no real site work experience clearly demonstrates this.

I completely agree and I’ll hold my hands up to being one of those who did 2391-52 through what can only be described as a money making organisation rather than a learning provider.

I was an avionic technician and supervisor in the RAF for 10 years and when it came to leaving I knew I was going to end up in a maintenance job in a commercial or industrial environment, and that I’d need PLC experience and an 18th edition certificate to meet the “must haves” for most of those job adverts. My 10 years of experience with electrical and electronic systems and the underpinning electrical principles knowledge from the excellent training only went so far, ultimately the knowledge and experience was aircraft based and I didn’t have the required civilian ticks.

So, I went off and researched the courses available concentrating on those that allowed me to use my learning credits for funding. I came across one provider that offered a four week combined PLC (10 days), 18th (3 days) and 2391-52 (5 days + 1 day practical exam at later date) course which used the maximum funding from one of my three credits, plus a personal contribution of about £900.

No prior experience was required, other than a basic understanding of electrical principles which was assumed rather than assessed. I sat the course with four other military guys, all of us aircraft avionic techs and none of us with any domestic or commercial experience. Until the first afternoon of 2391-52 I had never taken the cover off of a DB or CU, let alone used an MFT or done EFLI testing.

Unsurprisingly the 5 of us really struggled with both the practical and theory elements. Not only were the wiring and installation methods physically different, the terminology was also completely foreign. TN-C-S, TT, Zs, Ze, R1+R2? None of those are relevant to aircraft, nor are there any directly related principles to compare to. Safe isolation procedure? Unplug the power lead, switch off the battery and hang a sign up. Maybe disconnect the battery if you’re breaking into fuel lines/tanks. Test to confirm dead? Maybe flick a couple of switches and make sure the equipment doesn’t come on. All of these skills apprentice electricians take for granted had to be learned in the space of 5 days!

All 5 of us complained at the time, and it’s a complaint repeated every time they run the course I imagine, that 2391-52 is not suitable for people like us with no site experience of normal, “civilian”, electrical supplies when even experienced electricians were struggling. There were at least two domestic installers and an ex-apprentice with 17 years experience who needed the certificate for his employer (local council). They found the theory hard but at least understood the terminology and were brilliant at the practical testing.

The provider shrugged off our complaints, just happy to be getting the money at the end of the day. Of the 5 military guys 3 of us passed the theory exams and, as far as I’m aware, I’m the only one to have gone back and passed the practical exam. I didn’t need to, and certainly don’t need the qualification for my day job, but it seemed a waste to go to all the effort of learning it all, and paying for the course, to not get something out of it. I only passed it all through studying the books in my own time and practicing at home and at work with an MFT I bought for myself. I was, and am, a little shocked at the complete lack of testing or even adherence to the regs I’ve come across in the places I’ve worked by colleagues who do call themselves electricians.

I do not claim to be an electrician or any sort of regs expert and nor do I run around house bashing for a living now. I’ve spent the 18 months since doing the course getting site experience alongside my day job as a maintenance tech by going out with a couple of qualified electricians and doing jobs with them in my own time. I’ve learned so much more from them, from this forum and the multitude of YouTube electricians (Dave Savery and SparkyNinja mainly) than I ever would have from the course alone.

It’s from that limited site experience and my own further studying that I’ve learnt how to read the certificates with a critical eye and see the things that don’t add up on paper. My 2391-52 certificate is just that, it’s almost worthless without the hard earned experience.

 

[Deleted account]

Agree with above...
sire experience essential.
I did the 2395 EICR. But even after doing that I did the first 3 or 4 condition reports with an someone with years of experience of EICRs. In fact it was the guy who taught the course who is also a friend.
if I hadn’t I most probably would have messed my first few up.
so I’d like to amend my previous statement And say that in order to donEICRs do the course AND get some on site training In EICRs. At th3 very least get someone to r3view the first several EICRs you do.

 

[a111an]

Thanks, everyone for your detailed responses. So pleased I asked for help here, the report and quote didn't seem right.

I'm going to go back (again!) to the company and just ask them 3 questions below and hope they won't come back again with another vague blanket response.

Question 1
C2 - Additional RCD protection is required for circuits supplying outdoor equipment...The general and kitchen sockets are on RCD protection (although the trip times are missing in the report) and it's a 3rd floor flat. I can't see why outdoor equipment would be mentioned? Please explain.

Question 2
C2 - Consumer unit is not fire rated...
Looking at the report it is a C2 on the Observations page, but on the Inspection schedule page, it's a C3. Which is it? Please explain.

Question 3
The draft quote has 'Replace fixed bathroom fittings' at £154+vat. What is this?

I don't have much hope on the response, but am relieved I won't be giving them any more money. Just disappointed I'll need to start again and pay for another report elsewhere.

If there are any electrians here that would be interested in giving me a quote for a EICR for a 2 bedroom flat in Purfleet, Essex. I would also look at getting the wired fire alarm replaced and possible moving the 2 lighting circuits to the RCD bit or replacing with RCBOs. It looks like the other remediation work was fictitious.

 

[westward10]

They are fair enough questions, so you confirmed all socket outlets are on the rcd.

 

[a111an]

They are fair enough questions, so you confirmed all socket outlets are on the rcd.

Yes, almost certain that both kitchen and general ring mains are on RCD. I also have a report from 2018 that tested the socket for tripping in the hallway. The CU picture is a little blurry but does match up to the new report and shows both sockets within the RCD block.

 

[Dartlec]

That looks like a LeGrand/Tenby board, which appears to have been the go to for Barratt flats around that era and maybe other builders.

I've done several EICRs on them and found issues, but nothing that's required a new consumer unit yet (apart from a recent one where it was manky and the place was being refurbed). You can still buy parts for them for one thing, but unless they are severely damaged they are usually still very servicable.

This looks very similar to one I looked at in Southend earlier this year - a dual tariff board with the off peak side storage heaters and immersion non-rcd protected. There is probably a consumer unit somewhere in an external communal cupboard, with 16mm T&E to the board, protected by MCBs.

If it's as I think, then the C2 for additional RCD protection (which mentions Circuit 10), is for the off peak side, and there will be no socket outlets on there, so no opportunity to supply outdoor equipment and therefore not a C2 even if it wasn't a 3rd floor flat. (Assuming someone hasn't added a socket somewhere)

The C2 for fire rating is bogus - I don't think even NAPIT codebreakers (which is known for being 'strict') goes that far and the other guidance definitely does not. C3 at most unless there are signs of heat damage.

The flat I checked did have supplementary bonding in place, in which case the other C2 would also be irrelevant. (As mentioned, it is also ticked in the schedule in this case)

As also already mentioned, the smoke detectors expiry is a point of comment but not a code.

The tick boxes on the form are rather randomly ticked, including for inappropriate things like switched alternative to the public supply.

The fact that no RCD disconnection times are stated is also concerning - either the RCD failed, in which case it would obviously be noted as a departure by itself, or they forgot to make a note of them...

Regarding the quote:

The DB supply and install price is actually not too awful, *if* they were quoting for RCBOs for every circuit - though I wonder if they've factored in the off peak circuits in that too.

The price for replacing an optical smoke detector seems extravagant, especially if they are already there doing other work.

My guess is that the bathroom fittings may be for the downlights in the bathroom, which are probably badly connected with single insulation visible and may not be not bathroom rated ones, though they may well be outside the zones anyway. If this is so, they should have noted those as a code really and they've ticked the schedule to say it's fine.

So overall - based on the quality of their EICR I'd definitely think twice about going ahead with that quote. How can you be sure they'd properly test and certificate the new CU install, based on the issues with this certificate?

I'm the other side of the river, but only 20 minutes or so on a good day from it, so if you want me to give you a quote PM me. I can't promise it will pass first time, but I can guarantee that any remedial works would be suitably justified.

 

[Dartlec]

Just spotted another issue too - circuit 9 "heaters" is on a 32A in 2.5mm, but not tested for ring continuity.

The flat I checked did have a ring for the heaters, so I bet they forgot to test it.

 

[jackhammerJIM]

The amount of mistakes on the report brings the testers competency into dispute . I would get it retested by someone on this forum and refuse to pay the bill for the original EICR .
90 % sure it would be a satisfactory report if i had carried out the EICR .

 

[westward10]

I think your best bet is to prove the Report is incorrect, demand a refund and take @Dartlec up on his offer.

 

[Dartlec]

We've all made silly mistakes when doing a certificate late at night, but given the number on this report, it would be pulled apart in court were something to happen - or even if the local authority requested a copy and someone who knew what they were doing looked at it.

Not sure which scheme this company are with, but another alternative may be to approach them with specific concerns - though my suspicion is that they are often not terribly helpful, I can't see how they could see this report and say 'well that all seems fine'...

 

[Micktw68]

The tick boxes are always a dead giveaway of slapdash inspection.
I was pulled quite early on in my career by an eagle eyed QS who grilled me on where the other sources were located that I’d ticked As present.

 

[Simon47]

We have a problem at the moment in so far as the new laws regarding rental properties and eicrs.
i have to say I absolutely agree with the new laws.

The problem is There are thousands of landlords requiring EICRs now.

And the charlatans lined up and rubbing their hands with glee

So what is the answer? The landlord/lady lives hundreds of miles away so has to trust a third party to manage the property!

Based on my experience, I'd not consider having a property that wasn't close enough to manage myself. I've seen from the landlord's side that they don't know what they are doing*, and I've seen from the tenant's side (thanks to offspring in various rented places, as well as comments from tenants when I did use an agent) that they don't care and don't offer a decent service.
* Last one was when I got an email from the agent (let only) saying that I HAD to get an EICR done, blah, blah, blah. Funny, but I didn't get a reply when I pointed out five false statements in just 2 sentences - or pretty much everything they said !
Sadly, it's not an isolated occurance - I routinely get given information that's (at best) "misleadingly written" because it's supplied by some trade body or other with an eye on work for it's members rather than being honest. The agents (at least the smaller local ones) don't have the technical ability to write this stuff - so they have to rely on what they are told.

They provide an essential service, helping to relieve landlords of all that back-breaking work that they might otherwise have to do themselves.

If only

I really think there are sparks who think they are fully qualified doing EICR’s and are so far out of their depth that they don’t know what they are doing

I think part of the problem is the tendency to "install by numbers" - they don't know the regs, and can only follow the rules of thumb so "RFC on B32, lights on B6, ..." See the thread here where supposedly qualified electricians are telling someone that only a pull cord switch is allowed in a bathroom.
EDIT: It's a very different skill set doing testing vs house bashing installs, and a different set again for diagnostics. Sadly, I've found that the heating engineers are often no better at diagnostics - I remember one occasion when the boiler in the flat was playing up and it was only when I told them what the fault was (after several visits by different engineers that failed to identify it) that they actually fixed it. And all it was was a failed microswitch so the boiler didn't know when hot water was being called for - p**s-poor design to put it right where any leaks would drip on it.

I think your best bet is to prove the Report is incorrect, demand a refund and take @Dartlec up on his offer.

I'd agree. Furthermore, consider reporting the outfit to whichever scam ... err I mean approved scheme ... they are a member of. Unless they are reported and the scam does something, then they'll carry on fleecing vulnerable landlords. Of course, we don't expect the scam to throw out a member who's paying their membership fee

We've all made silly mistakes when doing a certificate late at night, but given the number on this report, it would be pulled apart in court were something to happen - or even if the local authority requested a copy and someone who knew what they were doing looked at it.

Trouble is, the clockis ticking on the 28 day rule, and the LA won't care and probably don't employ anyone who'd know an EICR from a MWC. All they'll see is "unsatisfactory" and go off to add it to their statistics.

 

[a111an]

A little update and after a fair bit of back and forth the company have agreed to refund for the report.

Below are there responses to my questions from the company, I don't think I need to comment further!

Going forward I now need to arrange another test with a competent person. Thanks everyone for all the excellent advice.

Question 1
C2 - Additional RCD protection is required for circuits supplying outdoor equipment...The general and kitchen sockets are on RCD protection (although the trip times are missing in the report) and it's a 3rd floor flat. I can't see why outdoor equipment would be mentioned? Please explain.

​

If I'm being honest, this is an observation which we come across in 90% of all properties so it's on the template we use. It doesn't relate to this property.​

​

Question 2
C2 - Consumer unit is not fire rated...
Looking at the report it is a C2 on the Observations page, but on the Inspection schedule page, it's a C3. Which is it? Please explain.

​

Further to our telephone conversation with regards to it being a local authority requirement I had a quick look and they advise to follow the government requirements which would class this as a C3 as per your observation page, sorry to be a right pain but I know the Landlord will do their research.​

​

Again, referring to our call, we have found the majority of local authorities are insisting on this. Especially, the London boroughs.​

​

Question 3
The draft quote has 'Replace fixed bathroom fittings' at £154+vat. What is this?

​

As you can see from the images these are not IP rated. It's an error on our part, juggling the sheer volume of work we taken on in the last few months, the reports were being handwritten and then typed up by our operations staff, the cross-over admittedly created a few issues, all our engineers now have their own laptops and are creating the reports on site.​

​

Smoke detectors – are not part of the regs, the installation supply is but not the expiry date in relation to an EICR.

​

This mostly comes down to preference from the agents we work with, most of whom, instruct us to check the alarms whilst we're carrying out our tests. As you can see from the images attached the alarms within the property have expired.​

 

[westward10]

Thanks for the update and a good result. Their reasoning quite frankly is poor, using templates, passing the buck to others and following third party guidance as opposed to the requirements of BS7671.
I am afraid to say this is now typical of our industry and I hope you get a better outcome in the future.

 

[Dartlec]

A little update and after a fair bit of back and forth the company have agreed to refund for the report.

Below are there responses to my questions from the company, I don't think I need to comment further!

Going forward I now need to arrange another test with a competent person. Thanks everyone for all the excellent advice.

Question 1
C2 - Additional RCD protection is required for circuits supplying outdoor equipment...The general and kitchen sockets are on RCD protection (although the trip times are missing in the report) and it's a 3rd floor flat. I can't see why outdoor equipment would be mentioned? Please explain.

​

If I'm being honest, this is an observation which we come across in 90% of all properties so it's on the template we use. It doesn't relate to this property.​

​

Question 2
C2 - Consumer unit is not fire rated...
Looking at the report it is a C2 on the Observations page, but on the Inspection schedule page, it's a C3. Which is it? Please explain.

​

Further to our telephone conversation with regards to it being a local authority requirement I had a quick look and they advise to follow the government requirements which would class this as a C3 as per your observation page, sorry to be a right pain but I know the Landlord will do their research.​

​

Again, referring to our call, we have found the majority of local authorities are insisting on this. Especially, the London boroughs.​

​

Question 3
The draft quote has 'Replace fixed bathroom fittings' at £154+vat. What is this?

​

As you can see from the images these are not IP rated. It's an error on our part, juggling the sheer volume of work we taken on in the last few months, the reports were being handwritten and then typed up by our operations staff, the cross-over admittedly created a few issues, all our engineers now have their own laptops and are creating the reports on site.​

​

Smoke detectors – are not part of the regs, the installation supply is but not the expiry date in relation to an EICR.

​

This mostly comes down to preference from the agents we work with, most of whom, instruct us to check the alarms whilst we're carrying out our tests. As you can see from the images attached the alarms within the property have expired.​

Credit to them for backing down I guess - but that sounds like they realised that they wouldn't be able to defend that report should anyone with electrical knowledge see it.

The template comment is hardly encouraging - just makes you wonder how many other properties have had an incorrect C2 applied.