After a bit of peer review of a report that has been done

[Pretty Mouth]

Date of last inspection -Being a PRS property and (I'm led to believe) the client has used the same people every time - Records should be available right?

EICRs for rentals have only been a requirement for a few months now, there's a good chance there are no previous records available.

Main protective earthing conductor is recorded as 16mm with 6mm main bonding conductors. I take umberage with them being verified as I don't believe this was done (certainly if you look at the under-sink shot I posted in #earthing-and-bonding , it's just a link across the water meter, with no further signs of bonding (haven't checked boiler).

This would be evident at the MET and by testing. There would be 2 X 6mm singles in the earth bar. Disconnect and continuity test each to the pipework would confirm. Similar test for earthing conductor

3.4 confirmation of earthing conductor size - 542.3 543.1.1 - ticked but as DNO OCPD not verified can't say if 6mm is appropriate or not.

This is listed as 16mm. Worst case, run adiabatic using the PFC and a 100A BS1361 (the max expected in domestic), then check 544.1.1. It should comply at 10mm.

4.21 connections tight and secure - Not a torque driver in sight, yet ticked

A tough one. A lot of sparks (there are at least a few on this forum) don't use torque drivers, and the torque data is rarely available on the board itself.

5.17 terminations (526.6) ticked but not a torque driver in sight

Probably wouldn't use a torque driver for tightening terminations at accessories. I never have, and don't recall seeing manufacturer's data for such.

6.4 Supp Bonding not present/verified but marked N/A

RCD protection on all circuits serving the bathroom, main bonding confirmed? Sup bonding not required.

Other than that, mostly agree with your comments. It's not a great report. Have you noticed any C1s or C2s that the inspector may have missed?

 

[Lister1987]

EICRs for rentals have only been a requirement for a few months now, there's a good chance there are no previous records available.


This would be evident at the MET and by testing. There would be 2 X 6mm singles in the earth bar. Disconnect and continuity test each to the pipework would confirm. Similar test for earthing conductor


This is listed as 16mm. Worst case, run adiabatic using the PFC and a 100A BS1361 (the max expected in domestic), then check 544.1.1. It should comply at 10mm.


A tough one. A lot of sparks (there are at least a few on this forum) don't use torque drivers, and the torque data is rarely available on the board itself.


Probably wouldn't use a torque driver for tightening terminations at accessories. I never have, and don't recall seeing manufacturer's data for such.


RCD protection on all circuits serving the bathroom, main bonding confirmed? Sup bonding not required.

Other than that, mostly agree with your comments. It's not a great report. Have you noticed any C1s or C2s that the inspector may have missed?

I don't recal any wander lead test being done to either pipework, just a open draws, eyeball and tick.

Was doing to run it through it but wanted to see if anyone had done similar and could remember off-hand, lazy I know.

Fair point about the torque driver, would be down roof manufacturers had torque data available for thier 'older' switchgear, what is it thru say about ignorance being no excuse.

Was working on the basis that it may have been a requirement when the house was constructed bit my knowledge of older regs ain't great, obviously the regs since did away with it is RCDs are present.

No immediate C1s visible, although the socket next to the extractor chimney has a hoping hole to the socket, whether or not out-of-reach precludes it being dangerous is down to interpretation.

Wanting to get my MFT fixed before I go around double checking results.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

A couple more points:

5.2 cables supported throughout (521.10.202 522.8.5) marked as LIM but not listed in limitations

5.10 prescribed zones - marked as LIM but not listed in limitations.

5.11 as above

These are listed, in the printed note below the limitations.

Was working on the basis that it may have been a requirement when the house was constructed bit my knowledge of older regs ain't great, obviously the regs since did away with it is RCDs are present.

The EICR is carried out to current regs, you don't need to worry about it complying to earlier editions

 

[Lister1987]

A couple more points:


These are listed, in the printed note below the limitations.


The EICR is carried out to current regs, you don't need to worry about it complying to earlier editions

I must have missed them, apologies.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I must have missed them, apologies.

No apologies necessary Fella, we're all here to learn from each other

 

[Lister1987]

No apologies necessary Fella, we're all here to learn from each other

And learning I am if I didn't have the limited knowledge I have at the mo I probably wouldn't give it a second thought but as I do and have a family to think about, I can't help but look at this and think something doesn't sit right.

I see if can get pictures of the board cover off (not changed since the ones I posted when I moved in to be fair), can't remember if I posted pictures of the bonding, will get them and add them.