EICR - Unsatisfactory - No RCD - C2

[Surgite]

Hi everyone, a bit more info based on the discussions.

The flat is on the ground floor, it has a small balcony but no outdoor sockets.

Someone asked for a photo of the board. This is the only one I have right now, I'll take a better photo with the board open.



The seller of the property didn't provide an EICR or "electrical test certificate" as the solicitors called it. The flat was being let by the previous owner so I suspect it either was compliant at some point and/or they never bothered.

When getting quotes for the remedial works, should I just enquire about a new consumer unit? Does that cover the RCD protection?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

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

Agreed, there's very little to the chapter. It does say in 653.1 that "
an Electrical Installation Condition Report based on the model given in Appendix 6 shall be produced", but the words 'based on' are a bit vague to me, not really offering any minimum expectations.

 

[Surgite]

I received a quote from the same electrician for the remedial works. It's £812.50 for "CMU (double stack) replacement" and includes a retest and EICR satisfactory certificate.



I'm not sure what CMU means, some type of consumer unit? Didn't find results online and the marketplace doesn't allow direct contact between the parties. As I'm new to this and have no point of reference, does this quote seem reasonable for the works?

 

[Aaron b]

It's the inspectors opinion and judgement on whether it's potentially dangerous, whilst there's guides they can't cover all scenarios. I don't see why you wouldn't bump a c3 upto a c2 if your opinion was that it needed correcting.

 

[davesparks]

I received a quote from the same electrician for the remedial works. It's £812.50 for "CMU (double stack) replacement" and includes a retest and EICR satisfactory certificate.

View attachment 100490

I'm not sure what CMU means, some type of consumer unit? Didn't find results online and the marketplace doesn't allow direct contact between the parties. As I'm new to this and have no point of reference, does this quote seem reasonable for the works?

CMU? I've no idea, the item that will be replaced is a consumer unit (CU)

What do you mean by the marketplace?

It's impossible to say if that's a reasonable quote or not, the best thing to do is get a couple of quotes from other electricians and see how they compare.

 

[littlespark]

I received a quote from the same electrician for the remedial works. It's £812.50 for "CMU (double stack) replacement" and includes a retest and EICR satisfactory certificate.

View attachment 100490

I'm not sure what CMU means, some type of consumer unit? Didn't find results online and the marketplace doesn't allow direct contact between the parties. As I'm new to this and have no point of reference, does this quote seem reasonable for the works?

I’m not sure what CMU means either “consumer main unit”?? I dunno.

I’d be a bit concerned about the meter tails resting on the metal trunking like that. (#31, for those not paying attention )

 

[timhoward]

@Surgite is this property in London (as per your profile) or elsewhere? I'm just wondering if any forum members are nearby. It will also help assess the pricing as it does vary by region.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Gosh, I can't remember the last time I disagreed with both westward and davesparks. I automatically feel I must be missing something, but I'm really not sure in this case.

I just can't see how an installation can be unsatisfactory if there is absolutely nothing dangerous, nothing whatsoever even potentially dangerous and absolutely nothing that needs looking into further because there's zero chance of it being dangerous. But it's still unsatisfactory.

With your argument of it not stating it in the regs, you could then still say it's unsatisfactory even if there were no codes at all.

Have you ever given an unsatisfactory like this? If so, could you explain how? Genuinely interested,

 

[davesparks]

Have you ever given an unsatisfactory like this? If so, could you explain how? Genuinely interested,

No but I've had one where I debated it for quite some time and had a long chat about it with the guy who taught me.

5 year old stage lighting installation, probably around 100 circuits out of nearly 300 with unexpected IR readings ranging from 10 to 100 ish megohms, all stable readings no fluctuation.

So the readings comply, but they just don't make sense.

As its a stage lighting installation all of the circuits are terminated in sockets, no permanently installed equipment, neons etc to be messing with the test. The theatre was dark at the time (a theatre that is dark is one that has no show, so no set, lighting rig, completely empty stage)

The circuits in question are all in groups of six, and six is a magic number in this kind of installation. We use a lot of socapex connectors which are a 19 pin plug/socket system used to connect 6 circuits at a time. So I popped a panel open and disconnected one of these sockets and sure enough the low readings disappeared from the circuit.

Obviously not a C1 or C2, and no further investigation really necessary, so that leaves a possible C3 (also debatable) and the question of whether or not this is satisfactory.

 

[nicebutdim]

I’d be a bit concerned about the meter tails resting on the metal trunking like that. (#31, for those not paying attention )

I can't enlarge the image on this device, but there's something raised from the trunking at the cable entry. Possibly a dust covered bush or grommet.

 

[mainline]

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. )

Marinas and morris minor had a tendency for the bottom ball joint to fall out, this especially happened more frequently with the arrival of the sleeping policemen.
Just saying

 

[littlespark]

I can't enlarge the image on this device, but there's something raised from the trunking at the cable entry. Possibly a dust covered bush or grommet.

Actually... i was looking at it on a tiny phone screen, sitting in my van in the dark, waiting for a bus with.... and to me, looked like the top surface of trunking, a bit rusty... and the tails just resting on maybe a bit of T&E sheath being used as grommit strip.

Now seen it on laptop screen.... its fine.

 

[Surgite]

Took some better photos of the board. Also found out that CMU in this case means ConsuMer Unit, odd way to abbreviate it.

The cost of the dual stack board and components was said to be around £250. The flat is in London, E1.

 

[davesparks]

Well that is going to be a little more work than your average domestic CU replacement.
The chances of getting a new CU to fit the exact gap between the steel trunking and the (presumably steel) conduit beneath are pretty slim.

It would be interesting to see inside that CU and know what type of cable is in there.

 

[westward10]

That is also a dual tariff board.

 

[sparksfly]

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.

I agree with you on this one, however I might C2 for ground floor apartment if it was easy to use 230V equip outside and the flat had frequent change of occupancy as opposed to long term tenant.
The main issue are these these cheap EICRs only to add remedials to make it economically viable.
There is plenty room for an external RCD if needed.

BTW..(...NOT directed at the electrician)....OBSERVATIONS Section K ..... Never seen "limitations" as an observation code, If I had made that up my assessor would have said it was not part of the BS7671 model form or marked me down as non compliant
......maybe we should all self-regulate and bypass most of this admin nonsense.

 

[Tom 256]

EICR's being undertaken as a means to generate remedial work, that is what we are seeing so often. Oh how we debate the right or wrong of a coding completly overlooking this is not enginerring judgment its a sales pitch.
NO EICR should be tainted with this language of 'work needed notice me I can do it' within the report or from the mouth of 'the inspector'.

I see so many nonsense codings stinking of this stench. Want an EICR look to someone who is not in and out in an hour and is not looking to sell upgrades cheapy cheapy to you special price

Reminds me of the garages that use every and any electrical issue on a vehicle to sell a new battery.

 

[LukeD]

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.

As above....to test 9 circuits for that money in that time is a bad sign of how the whole EICR thing is a mess

 

[Tom 256]

An electrical installation installed in accordance with an earlier edition of the wiring regs may not comply with the current requirements.
This does not warrant by default an unsatisfactory finding OR that it requires upgrading. Yet because it is so easy to quote a regulation number from the 18th : 2022 and say 'look your installation does not comply, the big book says this...' now lets talk about putting that right £££££££.

Nonsense and a scam by any other name.

 

[Tom 256]

As above....to test 9 circuits for that money in that time is a bad sign of how the whole EICR thing is a mess

100 % agree Luke. Not an EICR a means to generate work.

 

[rewireIT]

As above....to test 9 circuits for that money in that time is a bad sign of how the whole EICR thing is a mess

I would think i'd be able to test a 1 bed flat in 2 hours.

 

[LukeD]

I would think i'd be able to test a 1 bed flat in 2 hours.

I thought the average near me was 10-20 mins for a 2 bedroom flat ...