EICR - Unsatisfactory - No RCD - C2

[Surgite]

Hi all, have just ordered my first EICR ever for a studio to 1-bed conversion flat in London. It cost a little less than £80 and the electrician had great reviews on the site I booked him on. It came back with 4x C2 and 1x C3, all related to RCD. The summary was unsatisfactory with comment "No RCD protection of any of the circuits".

I've attached an anonymised version of the report. As I'm new to all this, I'm wondering did I get value for money or did I get ripped off with an unfavourable summary that requires urgent remediation according to the electrician. Any questions about the flat, just ask.

In terms of next steps, I'm unsure if I should book an appointment with another electrician to try getting a satisfactory report, or start getting quotes for the RCD works.

 

[plugsandsparks]

If the board is 35 years old, it has done its job and advice is to retire it, lol
Modern up to date stuff offers far superior protection for life, building and equipment, so my advice is replace DB,

 

[timhoward]

Exactly. The current consumer unit is designed to protect the wiring from over-heating and avoid fires. It's not designed to save anyone's life. My general advice would also be to get the board changed. Modern boards detect electricity 'going the wrong way' e.g. through a person and turn things off damned quickly if required.

I have suspicions that someone apparently managed to test 9 circuits for £80. We could get into technicalities about whether RCD protection is required, but it's 2022 and you really want RCD protection irrespective of whether there's a theoretical route through an EICR that ends up determining it's not required.

Another EICR (if done competently) would cost at least double that, and it would likely have at least one C2, so you'd be back where you started. In other words the money is better put into a board change.

I'd get some quotes from other people to change the board. Whoever does it will/should test each circuit anyway and give you peace of mind about the installation. (As long as you have a written record that the work was completed you don't need another EICR saying "satisfactory").

 

[telectrix]

as asaid. the report looks OK from my chair. lack of RCD protection is definitely a C2 or a C3 on the EICR. what is worrying is could he do a competent EICR for <£80. that equates to a brief 2 hours at most. I would expect you to have paid double that amount for a thorough inspection.

 

[GBDamo]

as asaid. the report looks OK from my chair. lack of RCD protection is definitely a C2 or a C3 on the EICR. what is worrying is could he do a competent EICR for <£80. that equates to a brief 2 hours at most. I would expect you to have paid double that amount for a thorough inspection.

It's a standard look at the board (no RCD), do a few test, fill out the form, it'll all get tested after the board change.

One of the other sparks at work just go bit by this. Fully completed EICR certificate, all tests; results fine.

We got the remedials, two board to swap out, 11 circuits in total.

Of the five rings only two were. (All reviously on 30A rewirables)

IRs all 999+ on the EICR, reality says between 0.7 and 40 MOhms.

It was an out of hours job, commercial. Customer wouldn't accept EICR before board change, can hardly blame them, so he ordered all the RCBOs and went in blind.

In the end the job was left with two circuits disconnected, 7 radials in three16A RCBOs, one ring fixed.

Customer told to minimise loads, no AC units, until we can resolve. They're miffed as "none of these falts were found in the EICR".

You so want to say "well pay for a proper EICR then"

 

[swaRRR]

To be fair, for £80 in London i think that's a pretty decent EICR and his recommendations are right - the install is a fail.

There's a worrying trend on here of customers automatically assuming their spark is trying to rip them off when a fail comes their way.

 

[westward10]

To be fair, for £80 in London i think that's a pretty decent EICR and his recommendations are right - the install is a fail.

There's a worrying trend on here of customers automatically assuming their spark is trying to rip them off when a fail comes their way.

An EICR does not fail it is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

 

[swaRRR]

An EICR does not fail it is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

Semantics.

 

[davesparks]

Semantics.

It's not semantics, there is a difference

 

[westward10]

Semantics.

No it isn't.

 

[timhoward]

To be fair, for £80 in London i think that's a pretty decent EICR and his recommendations are right - the install is a fail.

I'm being ultra-pedantic now, just to get a point across!
If it was a first floor flat, and there were no sockets available for use outdoors, it could well perfectly comply with the 16th edition. I could decide to follow BPG4 to the letter. If I did there's a good chance it would end up with lots of C3's and no C2's. (Note that it says there is supplementary bonding present in the bathroom).

This doesn't change my view that the right thing to do is clearly to change the board, it's common sense.
(In car terms, I could get a Morris Marina (other cars are available) through an MOT and it be declared safe to drive on the road. I wouldn't want my daughter to learn to drive in something without ABS and airbags though. )

 

[plugsandsparks]

I'm being ultra-pedantic now, just to get a point across!
If it was a first floor flat, and there were no sockets available for use outdoors, it could well perfectly comply with the 16th edition. I could decide to follow BPG4 to the letter. If I did there's a good chance it would end up with lots of C3's and no C2's. (Note that it says there is supplementary bonding present in the bathroom).

This doesn't change my view that the right thing to do is clearly to change the board, it's common sense.
(In car terms, I could get a Morris Marina (other cars are available) through an MOT and it be declared safe to drive on the road. I wouldn't want my daughter to learn to drive in something without ABS and airbags though. )

Like the analogy, add seat belts and headrests and yes you have a death trap..

 

[plugsandsparks]

The words used are important for forces outside of our limited view of the wider world (legal world)

This is my take: A Car specifically passes an MOT or fails an MOT. The consequences are that it is against the law AKA illegal to continue to drive said car.

An electrical installation is either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory for continued use. Unsatisfactory is an adjective describing the installation as just not being good enough for continued use. It is not against the law to continue to use it and in almost all situations after an unsatisfactory report it is indeed still operating until someone comes along later (hopefully) and makes improvements.

The Law around electrical installations is very very complex and to the lay person can appear to be a little bizarre. An attempt to simplify it or indeed alter it to make it more black and white really is misleading. The Law is complex and we as electricians should not try and tip it one way or another because we believe the Law should be different.

For Example: A 1970s installation is in very good condition, passess all the relevant tests but has no MCBs, no RCDs, no antisurge, no AFDs - It will get a "Satisfactory"

A 2016 installation has a socket cct on a B32 breaker and a 1.1 Ohm Zs (off the top of my head) - It will be given a C2 and deemed "Unsatisfactory"

Again using the Car analogy i would be happier by a country mile, my daughter living in the latter home than the former.

Now if we move onto installations that involve tenants, employees and members of the general public, the Law takes on a more aggressive stance such that an unsatisfactory report can leave the entity responsible for building safety ,much more on the back foot if someone gets injured and the report has not be acted on in a reasonable timeframe.

Hopefully this may help the debate.

I am not an advocate of the present system as i believe, in the UK, we have become a little entrenched in particular legal position which does not recognise fully the damage electricity can do to people and buildings and where H&S has improved massively in the many areas of life, Electricity is treated somewhat special..........

 

[littlespark]

£80..... in London?

That wouldn't cover driving there and getting out the van.


Ok, maybe the person doing the EICR did it on a special price, on assumption they would maybe get the remedials.... And they know the property....
But for any work, get 2 or 3 quotes. I imagine changing the board will solve everything.

I agree with Westy.... An EICR isnt a pass/fail. Its a report... the clue's in the name.... a description of the installation in terms of the condition. And the difference between a satisfactory, or unsatisfactory could all be down to how the tester is feeling that particular day.

On a pedantic note myself... I see its a double stack board.. (sounds like a hamburger!) and there's storage heaters... So i think ther'es two sets of tails, two mainswitches... Should be two circuit charts detailing each side. But thats just me...

OP could photograph the board and pop it up

 

[brianmoooore]

Only skimmed through this thread, but this appears to be a property with little chance of equipment being used outdoors, was installed with full compliance to the regs at the time, and has not deteriorated to a dangerous extent since.
On that basis, the C2s should be C3s, and the installation is 'satisfactory'.
This is a case of a Morris Marina, fully roadworthy, and with a current MOT (actually, doesn't actually need one, IIRC). Perfectly legal to drive, but potentially dangerous nevertheless.
Anyone considering using it as daily transport would be well advised to find something a bit more compliant with current standards, just as the owner of this property should be, with regard to RCDs.
In short, the property is 'satisfactory' as far as the EICR is concerned, but the EICR should be accompanied by a note stating that it is actually unsatisfactory and strong consideration should be given to the recommended upgrade.

 

[davesparks]

On that basis, the C2s should be C3s, and the installation is 'satisfactory'.

Not necessarily, you can give an overall assessment of unsatisfactory with only C3 observations.

Having a C1 or C2 makes it automatically unsatisfactory but this does not preclude an installation without such observations from also being unsatisfactory.

 

[westward10]

Not necessarily, you can give an overall assessment of unsatisfactory with only C3 observations.

Having a C1 or C2 makes it automatically unsatisfactory but this does not preclude an installation without such observations from also being unsatisfactory.

Totally agree and I do in fact I did a thread on this a while back.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Not necessarily, you can give an overall assessment of unsatisfactory with only C3 observations.

Having a C1 or C2 makes it automatically unsatisfactory but this does not preclude an installation without such observations from also being unsatisfactory.

Just want to check this @davesparks , as I thought there had to be a C1 or C2 for an unsatisfactory outcome? Based on the note in section E of the EICR model form:

*An unsatisfactory assessment indicates that dangerous (code C1) and/or potentially dangerous (code C2) conditions have been identified.

 

[westward10]

Just want to check this @davesparks , as I thought there had to be a C1 or C2 for an unsatisfactory outcome? Based on the note in section E of the EICR model form:

*An unsatisfactory assessment indicates that dangerous (code C1) and/or potentially dangerous (code C2) conditions have been identified.

But it doesn't say if there are none of those Codes it is immediately satisfactory.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

But it doesn't say if there are none of those Codes it is immediately satisfactory.

I was about to argue with you about this: Unsatisfactory = C1 or C2 identified, therefore no C1 or C2 must = satisfactory.

Until I noticed no mention of FI's in the note, which will = an unsatisfactory report. IET should re-write that note really, so as we're all on the same page (customers included).

 

[westward10]

I was about to argue with you about this: Unsatisfactory = C1 or C2 identified, therefore no C1 or C2 must = satisfactory.

Until I noticed no mention of FI's in the note, which will = an unsatisfactory report. IET should re-write that note really, so as we're all on the same page (customers included).

Even without 1, 2 and FI there is nothing to say it must be satisfactory.

 

[loz2754]

Even without 1, 2 and FI there is nothing to say it must be satisfactory.

Westward10 - I'm not sure I'm following your thinking here.

Perhaps you would care to share an example of something you would consider that is not immediately dangerous or potentially dangerous, but would result in a report being unsatisfactory?

Being that the purpose of an EICR is to show whether the installation is safe for continued use, meaning that there is nothing dangerous or potentially dangerous.

 

[westward10]

Westward10 - I'm not sure I'm following your thinking here.

Perhaps you would care to share an example of something you would consider that is not immediately dangerous or potentially dangerous, but would result in a report being unsatisfactory?

Being that the purpose of an EICR is to show whether the installation is safe for continued use, meaning that there is nothing dangerous or potentially dangerous.

Simple really, the suggested report format in BS7671 does not state a report should be satisfactory if only Code 3 issues are present.

 

[loz2754]

Simple really, the suggested report format in BS7671 does not state a report should be satisfactory if only Code 3 issues are present.

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question.
It's not important anyway, just being curious.

 

[davesparks]

Perhaps you would care to share an example of something you would consider that is not immediately dangerous or potentially dangerous, but would result in a report being unsatisfactory?

If there are no C1 or C2 items but multiple pages of C3 items you might consider whether or not it has got to the point of being unsatisfactory.

 

[loz2754]

If there are no C1 or C2 items but multiple pages of C3 items you might consider whether or not it has got to the point of being unsatisfactory.

I can see what you and westward10 are getting at, and, as it's left up to the one doing the inspection and testing to decide how to classify the installation, no-one can really contest it. I suppose you would write in the comments the reason(s) for the "Unsatisfactory" declaration?

 

[westward10]

I can see what you and westward10 are getting at, and, as it's left up to the one doing the inspection and testing to decide how to classify the installation, no-one can really contest it. I suppose you would write in the comments the reason(s) for the "Unsatisfactory" declaration?

I would list all the Code 3 observations there is no need to separately say why it is unsatisfactory. I see why people read it the way it is but as I say it does not state it should be satisfactory if there are no Codes 1, 2 or FI.

 

[timhoward]

I would list all the Code 3 observations there is no need to separately say why it is unsatisfactory. I see why people read it the way it is but as I say it does not state it should be satisfactory if there are no Codes 1, 2 or FI.

I know exactly what you are getting at.
There have been times where "safe for continued use" has felt like a lower bar than "satisfactory" even though one is supposed to imply the other.
I recently gave a 2nd opinion on a house with entirely 60's wiring, no CPC on lighting circuit, and no earth sleeving on any socket or light switch. Worst IR was about 5M. Also nowhere near enough sockets, leading to lots of extension leads. It had a a recent Hager board with upfront type A RCD. According to BPG4 all of the the above are C3's or no-code at worst. In once sense that was correct - no one was going to die today or tomorrow, it was safe enough for continued use "for now". It would have felt a stretch saying it was "Satisfactory" though, simply according to the common understanding of the word.

For the record, I've noticed that BPG4 does say precisely that it should be satisfactory if there are no C1,C2 or FI codes. I know that isn't an authoritative document. It's a document I generally appreciate though when dealing with domestic customers.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I personally think we are intended to give a satisfactory result where there is an absence of C1's, C2's and FI's. I can't find anything in the regs, forms, guidance etc that backs up the idea that we can give an unsatisfactory result where only C3's are present.

If an unsatisfactory report has only C3's, what remedial work should be done to bring it back to satisfactory?

From the OSG:

Where an unsatisfactory result has been recorded, C1 and/or C2 observations will have been included identifying the reason(s) for the result. Fl (Further Investigation) may also be recorded where the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 observation.

 

[westward10]

I personally think we are intended to give a satisfactory result where there is an absence of C1's, C2's and FI's. I can't find anything in the regs, forms, guidance etc that backs up the idea that we can give an unsatisfactory result where only C3's are present.

If an unsatisfactory report has only C3's, what remedial work should be done to bring it back to satisfactory?

From the OSG:

Where an unsatisfactory result has been recorded, C1 and/or C2 observations will have been included identifying the reason(s) for the result. Fl (Further Investigation) may also be recorded where the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 observation.

None of these are Regulations though BS7671 is scant on advice for periodics and the Appendix where the report format is contained is informative.