EICR Code for working RCD with non-functioning test button

[davesparks]

It's more the result of the entire EICR being marked as unsatisfactory that grinds (since we all know thats all anyone looks at). This is where I'd like a C2.5 - satisfactory as long as x is done before the next inspection.

You can't put conditions on a satisfactory result like that, it would be like saying 'i'll put down satisfactory if you give me an extra £200'

Yes the overall result is unsatisfactory, that is because you have identified that a device which is intended to save a human life in the event of a fault is not operating correctly.

 

[Dartlec]

I'd C1 the lot because its LAP brand

Fair... I did only try them once - sod's law that's the one that comes back to bite me on the arse...

 

[telectrix]

to save all the faff of paperwork, I'd replace both the RCD and the associated MCB with,say, BG devices. cost about £20. Then it would not be mix & match.

 

[radiohead]

to save all the faff of paperwork, I'd replace both the RCD and the associated MCB with,say, BG devices. cost about £20. Then it would not be mix & match.

Would be in a lap enclosure though, still mix and match!

 

[telectrix]

but if it doesn't say LAP on the tin, who's to know? you could say it's akin to fitting wago connectors in a wiska box.

 

[radiohead]

I've slightly amended my view on this, I cant see it as potentially dangerous but it's a faulty device and needs changing, so I think a code 2 is probably justified to make sure it is changed
[automerge]1595581464[/automerge]

but if it doesn't say LAP on the tin, who's to know? you could say it's akin to fitting wago connectors in a wiska box.

I get what you are saying but all the other devices in the board will be LAP, however you look at it there will be two brands in the DB.
Daft just for a technicality though, we both know if it fits right it'll be fine!

 

[pc1966]

Would be in a lap enclosure though, still mix and match!

I think the "mix and match" issue applies (technically at least) when you have a busbar arrangement as in a typical CU. There you have to make sure the busbar is properly entering and being clamped by the MCB, and you get a lot of variations on that.

If it is simply a RCD enclosure on a circuit already fed by a MCB from the main CU it would have no need for a busbar, just wires in and out, so I see no technical reason to complain.

But given the low cost of a pre-populated garage CU it would be worth just replacing the whole thing (assuming wires are not stretched out to limits and difficult to accommodate the slightly different new one).

 

[telectrix]

I've slightly amended my view on this, I cant see it as potentially dangerous but it's a faulty device and needs changing, so I think a code 2 is probably justified to make sure it is changed
[automerge]1595581464[/automerge]

I get what you are saying but all the other devices in the board will be LAP, however you look at it there will be two brands in the DB.
Daft just for a technicality though, we both know if it fits right it'll be fine!

how can there be 2 brands when both RCD and MCB are replaced? the remaining is just an enclosure.

 

[radiohead]

how can there be 2 brands when both RCD and MCB are replaced? the remaining is just an enclosure.

Indeed, sorry I'd forgotten it was a 1 way DB and not a dual RCD main board or whatever.
However it could be argued that it's still non compliant with the enclosure.
That said the cost of a small DB is minimal so just change the whole thing and you know it's right.

 

[Dartlec]

Indeed, sorry I'd forgotten it was a 1 way DB and not a dual RCD main board or whatever.
However it could be argued that it's still non compliant with the enclosure.
That said the cost of a small DB is minimal so just change the whole thing and you know it's right.

but if it doesn't say LAP on the tin, who's to know? you could say it's akin to fitting wago connectors in a wiska box.

The enclosure does actually say LAP, so if you were being exact putting another brand in there would be mix and match. As I understand it, the main reason for using all the same brand is to maintain the 16kA capacity rating based on the type testing by the manufacturer. Whether LAP or whoever made this actually did that is another matter of course...

However, replacing the entire unit would presumably require an 18th edition installation (Not just a 'direct replacement' as if effects the source of the installation), so metal box, new EIC, new testing of the circuit, Part P notification etc - i.e. not a 10 minute job, though not a huge PITA in this case.

I can probably say safely that the cost of a SPD is not justified, let alone an AFDD

Any experience of the small dbs for ease of use with cabling etc? Wylex or Crabtree are most likely to be around in 5 years I guess.

Thanks for all the replies. Replacing it is the correct option of course, though that's still in my mind a separate issue from the EICR.

When others have failed an EICR and then carried out remedial work, have you re-issued the EICR? Technically the recent landlord law allows the unsatisfactory cert + confirmation of the required work (MWC or EIC included presumably) to be taken together as proof of electrical safety. However, explaining that to anyone who ever looks at the certificicate is likely to be a pain, especially when it's potential tenants.