Landlord - EICR 'unsatisfactory'

[Blackfish]

I have let a flat for a several years to the same person (not a new tenancy). Hall, kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms and lounge. All on one floor.
Letting agent sent electrician to do EICR and it came back 'unsatisfactory':

Part 6: Observations and recommendations (all are Code C2)
1. 4.9 The main switch RCD did not trip when test button pressed.
2. 8.6 The cover of the lighting fitting is missing in the bathroom and needs replacing.
3. 8.7 The cover of the lighting fitting is missing in the bathroom and needs replacing.
4. The cable feeding the lighting circuit has no CPC, the lighting circuit needs to be rewired.
5. The metal switches have not earthed in the back boxes.
6. Circuits 4, 6 and 7 have multiple cables in the MCBs. These need to be put in their own MCB no spare ways.

Part 12: Circuit details
RCD
1. Cooker
2. Shower
3. Kitchen sockets
4. Sockets
5. Immersion heater
6. Sockets
7. Lights
8. Sockets

The agency's preferred electrician (whose company did the EICR) has quoted:

• To isolate and remove old consumer unit replace with a new dual RCD consumer unit as per regulations.
• To rewire the lighting circuit in the property (the cables will be run in surface trunking and the switches will be mounted on surface boxes to reduce damage to the walls and decorating).

Total cost parts and labour £1290 +£258 VAT, total £1548 (there is no breakdown of parts and labour). That would wipe out six months income from letting.

There are seven lights (two in lounge). While surface wiring wouldn't be my choice, I appreciate it is much quicker and easier than chasing out and making good.

Do you agree with the codes and is the quotation reasonable?
If not, does anyone local (Nottingham) want to quote?

Thank you.

 

[telectrix]

price looks reasonable, lighting rewire is a good call. i would however challenge the surface wiring. if you're spending £1500, then a couple of ton on making good after chasing etc. makes sense.

 

[SJD]

Hard to say if the observations are all correct or not, without more information. We always like to see a copy of the EICR, but with all the names and addresses etc. redacted, if you are able to do that.

For example, circuits 4 and 6 having multiple cables in the MCB, depends how many and what type of circuits. If a ring (ring final circuit) on a 32A MCB, a spur at the origin (i.e. the consumer unit) is perfectly OK, and you would have 3 cables in the MCB.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Total cost parts and labour £1290 +£258 VAT, total £1548 (there is no breakdown of parts and labour). That would wipe out six months income from letting.

This makes me laugh, safety before money, take it on the chin and sort it out.

 

[suffolkspark]

Sounds fine to me.

 

[Spoon]

This makes me laugh, safety before money, take it on the chin and sort it out.

All depends on how you look at it mate. @Blackfish might just be enquiring on if there is a cheaper, safe way of doing things.
If you take your car to the garage and they say it needs a tyre change and it will be £150, then you find out you can get a new tyre for £60 then I would go for the £60 tyre.
You can put a price on safety, when it can be done safely at a lower cost.

 

[loz2754]

It's about the same as I would charge in the West Midlands, but no vat.

 

[DPG]

Bit worrying that the RCD didn't trip. That definitely needs sorting!

 

[James]

Get a second quote.

They may even that the lights don’t need rewiring

Could be a conduit system?
Optimism is king tonight.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I think that's a good price, you are not being ripped off.

 

[Blackfish]

Thank you for the quick responses and valuable comments. I'll add that I don't intend to compromise safety to save a few quid - if it needs doing then I will get it done. I've attached the full report now (having figured out a way to redact it).

 

[SJD]

I've seen worse reports, but there are a few inconsistencies.

Certainly the RCD not operating is a C2. There appears to be an RCD main switch according to the schedule of test results, but the Part 9 suggests otherwise. Maybe sloppy completion of the form, but can you post a photo of the consumer unit, to confirm.

I'm guessing there is just one bathroom light and it gets mentioned with a C2 twice for good measure!

The test results claim to show an outgoing CPC (earth) for the lighting of 0.75mm2 (which is an odd size in modern cable, but maybe correct for an old imperial type). And check list item 5.7 is ticked for adequacy of CPCs. So I'm a bit confused then why to say the lighting circuit needs to be rewired. Possibly there is no CPC and the test results and 5.7 are wrong, but when asking someone to spend a lot of money, they should be consistent.

Not having earthed the switch metal back boxes, either there is a CPC but just not connected, or no CPC and can't be. Difficult to know what to believe. Just possibly there is a CPC to the lighting points but not the switch drops, I've seen that sometimes in properties of a certain age, but it is not clear.

Re the C2 for multiple cables in the MCB for circuits 4, 6 and 7 - these are radial circuits and might well have a branch at the origin. Some people may comment it is not good practice, but it is certainly not a C2.

 

[Blackfish]

@SJD, thank you for this. I will try to get a photo of the CU (though I've agreed all access is arranged via the letting agency). There is only one light in the bathroom but defect was noted under both 8.6 and 8.7?
The light switches are metal faced (swapped a few years ago but can be reverted to plastic if need be).
I can mention those discrepancies you highlight to the letting agency and will try to get another quotation.

Out of curiosity, if all light switches were plastic and no light fittings were of a type requiring an earth, does the circuit still need a CPC?

 

[Dartlec]

Get a second quote.

They may even that the lights don’t need rewiring

Could be a conduit system?
Optimism is king tonight.

Definitely possible so at least worth getting another set of eyes on it. Conduit systems seem to have been quite common in flats around here in the 70s - though the conduit earthing has sometimes gone south over the years with DIY changes or alterations by people who should know better.

The price sounds rather high to me (Kent prices) for a Dual RCD board and surface trunking. Lighting rewires can often be done mostly under floorboards/in loft in a house, but often harder in a flat of course.

 

[UNG]

I've seen worse reports, but there are a few inconsistencies.

It's one of the better ones seen on here recently, although it seems to lack some attention to detail
Don't understand why they N/A the age of the installation given that the cable sizes in the schedule if correct do date the installation

 

[Dartlec]

@SJD, thank you for this. I will try to get a photo of the CU (though I've agreed all access is arranged via the letting agency). There is only one light in the bathroom but defect was noted under both 8.6 and 8.7?
The light switches are metal faced (swapped a few years ago but can be reverted to plastic if need be).
I can mention those discrepancies you highlight to the letting agency and will try to get another quotation.

Out of curiosity, if all light switches were plastic and no light fittings were of a type requiring an earth, does the circuit still need a CPC?

If everything is class 2 (specifically designed not to require an earth) then there is guidance that it can be considered safe for continued usage, with a stipulation that no Class 1 fittings (requiring an earth) are fitted to that circuit. I'm not sure the spirit of the guidance is to just replace everything with plastic to avoid the issue though.

Having said that, if the fittings were replaced a few years back, that begs the question by whom? The lack of cpc should have been identified at the time really - so does make me wonder if it could be a conduit system that wasn't recognised as such,

If it is original cabling, there may be other options, such as running a separate cpc from the CU to each fitting, but in practise cabling old enough to not have a CPC is likely to be >50 years old and may well need rewiring sooner rather than later.

 

[Dartlec]

It's one of the better ones seen on here recently, although it seems to lack some attention to detail
Don't understand why they N/A the age of the installation given that the cable sizes in the schedule if correct do date the installation

Couple of odd LIMs in there too (protection against electromagnetic effects is an odd one to LIM, as is protection against mechanical damage when entering the CU - it either is there or not, and if you've taken the front off the CU you should be able to specify which) - though I agree it seems to be a proper report, compared to many I see.

I do query item 6 - multiple cables in an MCB for radial socket circuits and lighting circuits is never a C2, especially when each circuit is only covering a few sockets/lights.

Item 4 is written badly, as apparently a CPC does exist on the lighting circuit leaving the CU, though it may well not reach the switches or lighting fittings.

Might have been someone 'rewiring' the first leg and not the rest, but seems unlikely if the cable is old - (Don't think you have ever been able to get a 1mm/0.75mm twin and earth in metric sizing?)

 

[Dartlec]

@SJD, thank you for this. I will try to get a photo of the CU (though I've agreed all access is arranged via the letting agency). There is only one light in the bathroom but defect was noted under both 8.6 and 8.7?
The light switches are metal faced (swapped a few years ago but can be reverted to plastic if need be).
I can mention those discrepancies you highlight to the letting agency and will try to get another quotation.

Out of curiosity, if all light switches were plastic and no light fittings were of a type requiring an earth, does the circuit still need a CPC?

The light is listed twice presumably because it's in a zone (and not suitable) and also if the cover is missing then not considered suitable generally for its location (liable to be splashed) - so if it was outside a zone but still unsuitable it would only be listed once - fixing one of the issues would almost always fix the other anyway and a cheap surface LED fitting solves it easily.

I've noted though that some inspectors get very fussy over lights in bathrooms which are really not that big an issue - non IP rated downlights that are above 2.25m high should not be a C2 for example, and even otherwise unless directly over a shower would mostly be a C3 for me unless obvious deterioration.

Outside the zones there is nothing technically preventing a pendant fitting, other than 'good practise', which is subjective - and a huge number of houses built in the 80s-90s seem to have had a batten fitting put in the bathroom from the start...

 

[Grant1987]

This makes me laugh, safety before money, take it on the chin and sort it out.

This is always my point, I don’t blame the landlord for asking for a 2nd opinion but why has it taken it to become law to have an up to date EICR for the landlords to see if the property is up to the required standards. Electrics are neglected untill things go wrong and that should not be the case. Instead of paying out for the aesthetically pleasing improvements pay out for the essential improvements

 

[Dartlec]

This is always my point, I don’t blame the landlord for asking for a 2nd opinion but why has it taken it to become law to have an up to date EICR for the landlords to see if the property is up to the required standards. Electrics are neglected untill things go wrong and that should not be the case. Instead of paying out for the aesthetically pleasing improvements pay out for the essential improvements

I'm not sure this law will change that though - at least not until they weed out the £80 drive by reports - or the con artists charging to slap in a metal board to replace a perfectly well installed plastic one to tick a box rather than to improve safety. Landlords have always had the requirement to maintain a 'safe' installation.

It's more about a lot of people thinking that when sockets work, nothing can be wrong, where they tend not to have that view about gas so much. That's something the governing bodies should be trying to change with all the money they are taking from their 'members'

Also (not aimed at the OP at all, but a wider point with some landlords - more often the ones with many properties) - some landlords have seen rental stock as a purely investment cash cow, where they put as little in as possible and reap the percentage rewards year after year.

There are plenty of good landlords out there of course - and then there are ones that need guidance now and again on the difference between unnecessary work and vital safety improvements that will look no different on the surface.

It will be interesting to see how AFDDs are introduced in the EICR guidance - might be a few surprises in 5 years time if every board has to be replaced.

 

[Grant1987]

I'm not sure this law will change that though - at least not until they weed out the £80 drive by reports - or the con artists charging to slap in a metal board to replace a perfectly well installed plastic one to tick a box rather than to improve safety. Landlords have always had the requirement to maintain a 'safe' installation.

It's more about a lot of people thinking that when sockets work, nothing can be wrong, where they tend not to have that view about gas so much. That's something the governing bodies should be trying to change with all the money they are taking from their 'members'

Also (not aimed at the OP at all, but a wider point with some landlords - more often the ones with many properties) - some landlords have seen rental stock as a purely investment cash cow, where they put as little in as possible and reap the percentage rewards year after year.

There are plenty of good landlords out there of course - and then there are ones that need guidance now and again on the difference between unnecessary work and vital safety improvements that will look no different on the surface.

It will be interesting to see how AFDDs are introduced in the EICR guidance - might be a few surprises in 5 years time if every board has to be replaced.

Yes I agree that there are many quick reports carried out for quick cash by some cowboys but I do like to upgrade consumer units I’m not just saying plastic ones but consumer units with no rcd protection and the undersized main earth and bonding conductors. They are the most common reasons for me recommending consumer unit change. Yea the AFDDS will be an interesting one in the coming years just like the SPDs are now they add additional cost but have to install them it’s all necessary improvements and requirements so no issue there.

 

[Dartlec]

Yes I agree that there are many quick reports carried out for quick cash by some cowboys but I do like to upgrade consumer units I’m not just saying plastic ones but consumer units with no rcd protection and the undersized main earth and bonding conductors. They are the most common reasons for me recommending consumer unit change. Yea the AFDDS will be an interesting one in the coming years just like the SPDs are now they add additional cost but have to install them it’s all necessary improvements and requirements so no issue there.

Improvement in safety generally is always a good thing of course, but I would understand a landlord being miffed if he had a metal board replaced with a plastic dual RCD one 5 years ago to 'improve' things, only to be told this time he must have a metal one (by the more unscrupulous guys).

Of course, if manufacturers made their systems properly modular and backwards compatible it would be a lot easier, but clearly that's a pipe dream....

Instead we may well see the price of consumer units jump massively for a while, with very little information on why getting through to the general public as to why.

 

[UNG]

The more I look at that EICR it gives the impression of lack of experience in the construction of installations which for me is one of the skills needed to do EICR's properly

 

[Deleted account]

The price is very fair. I doubt you would get cheaper Than that. If you did I’d question how!

the points he has raised are valid, and I generally agree with them.

However you will always get differences of opinion from different sparkies. Especially on a forum.

my parents got an EICR done on there rental. I couldn’t do it due to living 400 miles away and Covid.

I didn’t agree with the codings, but the works they advised did need doing so I didn’t kick up a stink over differences of opinion. I told my parents to trust the electricians they got and go with what they said.

 

[UNG]

Yea the AFDDS will be an interesting one in the coming years just like the SPDs are now they add additional cost but have to install them it’s all necessary improvements and requirements so no issue there.

Other than compliance with the regs what gain is made from the installation of an SPD and the same goes for the installation AFDD's. Lots of hype to sell them to us but very little evidence that we do actually need them.
The mandatory installation of AFDD's will be the biggest safety fail of all times unless the unit cost is massively reduced pushing up the costs of replacing a CU that will be beyond many peoples budget and potentially putting them at risk will be difficult to explain

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Completely agree with Buzz.
The report is not written badly and the price is fair. You need to get the work done in order to make it safe for your lodgers.
I'm sure if you get enough second opinions you will find one that says the work is not required, you are then tempted to follow this advice rather than all the others advising you to get the work done.
It genuinely is a fair price.

 

[Blackfish]

Thank you for the further replies and considered advice. Got in there today and took a few pics. I can't see any CPCs at the two switches I looked at. Don't think it is conduit system (nothing evident). The bathroom light used to have a screw-on white glass bowl - no idea where that has gone (the base of that fitting is plastic). I didn't try tripping the RCD (the tenant was at home and I didn't want to disturb them unnecessarily).

Consumer unit is Tenby with Legrand MCBs.

Cct 1 is cooker point (with integral SO).
Cct 2 is shower.
Cct 3 is sockets in kitchen.
Cct 4 is 3 twin SOs in lounge, 1 single SO in lounge, 2 twin SOs in bed1.
Cct 5 is immersion heater.
Cct 6 is 1 single SO in bed2, 2 single SOs in lounge.
Cct 7 is lights (7 fittings - hall, kitchen, bathroom, bed1, bed2, 2 in lounge)
Cct 8 is 2 twin SOs in bed2, 1 twin SO in hall, fused spur for alarm.

I think I see some 7/029 in ccts 4 and 6 (sockets) and 3/029 in cct 7 (lights). The flat is all-electric and there had been storage heaters at some point in the past (I now have plug-in oil-filled rads). I think wiring to one or more of the storage heaters was reused to fit SOs instead. It is a first floor flat with concrete floors. There is another flat above so I think the ceiling will be concrete as well.

 

[Blackfish]

One more pic - front of MCBs.

 

[Dartlec]

From the pictures, it looks like the consumer unit was a newer replacement to older wiring.

Some new Legrand parts are still available - though can only find up to a 63A RCD immediately available, which might not be a suitable replacement depending on circumstances.

The pictures of light switch wiring/back boxes does look like unearthed cable though, so a rewire of that circuit is going to be needed at some point, even if it was possible to theoretically comply in the short term with legal requirements by ensuring every fitting/switch is a type that doesn't require earth. (Assuming the RCD issue is fixed regardless)

The bathroom light fitting will be an easy fix with a straight swap replacement LED surface fitting, so should be no big issues there.

You may be able to find a cheaper price with some shopping around (smaller firm that isn't vat registered), but you may have to factor in a new EICR on top, or be sure that you have suitable written confirmation that the C2s on your report are either resolved, or not actually issues.

If a replacement CU is being quoted for, then I would suggest type A RCBOs with SPD, and you will probably be covered for many years to come with no more surprises at future EICRs.

 

[SJD]

RS Components appear to stock Legrand RCDs and include an 80A one in their range. A replacement CU with Type A RCBOs for each circuit would be better long term solution.