Landlord's EICR query

[OldSparks]

Everyone is missing the point! A CU change is notifiable. Do the EICR , note any discrepancies and send the forms to Building Control with a covering letter and let them sort it out.
Don't rely on the trade body you are registered with to do the notification.Meanwhile tell the agents/landlords what you recommend to put the installation right.
SAFETY COMES FIRST, YOU HAVE A PRIMARY DUTY OF CARE WHICH OVERRIDES EVERYTHING

 

[DPG]

Everyone is missing the point! A CU change is notifiable. Do the EICR , note any discrepancies and send the forms to Building Control with a covering letter and let them sort it out.
Don't rely on the trade body you are registered with to do the notification.Meanwhile tell the agents/landlords what you recommend to put the installation right.
SAFETY COMES FIRST, YOU HAVE A PRIMARY DUTY OF CARE WHICH OVERRIDES EVERYTHING

I don't think anyone is missing the point. We know the CU has been changed at some point, maybe as long as 5 years ago. We also know there may never have been any paperwork issued.

 

[davesparks]

Everyone is missing the point! A CU change is notifiable. Do the EICR , note any discrepancies and send the forms to Building Control with a covering letter and let them sort it out.

Why would building control be interested in an EICR?

 

[Dustydazzler]

Why would building control be interested in an EICR?

They wouldn't be Dave , they would file it in the bin as it wouldn't even be woth the paper its scribbled on

 

[Intoelectrics]

Everyone is missing the point! A CU change is notifiable. Do the EICR , note any discrepancies and send the forms to Building Control with a covering letter and let them sort it out.
Don't rely on the trade body you are registered with to do the notification.Meanwhile tell the agents/landlords what you recommend to put the installation right.
SAFETY COMES FIRST, YOU HAVE A PRIMARY DUTY OF CARE WHICH OVERRIDES EVERYTHING

An EICR is to determine if an installation is safe for continued use. You have stated this yourself (in bold). Whether the installation of the CCU had been notified is irrelevant.
All you can do is comment on the current installation's condition, and if required apply codes and/or make recommendations based on improving the safety for continued use. The inspector is not there to police or do anything about it.

 

[Simon47]

Why would building control be interested in an EICR?

They wouldn't. But they might be interested in un-notified notifiable works.

 

[Dustydazzler]

They wouldn't. But they might be interested in un-notified notifiable works.

In my experience they have little interest in electrical work , how ever they can hold onto a building competition certificate until they get the part p notification. where this comes from or whom it comes from they couldn't give a rats

 

[Uplight99]

This doesn’t warrant a C2

Going by your logic most consumer units I test I’d have to give a C2 as most aren’t full RCBO with SPD

 

[Dustydazzler]

If you C2 all RCD boards then dual RCD boards will be C2 as well , which as you say we would be C2ing a lot of fairly new builds

 

[brianmoooore]

where this comes from or whom it comes from they couldn't give a rats

Only thing building control are interested in is the signature at the end, so that when things go wrong, there is someone to blame, other than themselves.

 

[bennie]

There are people on here who have been in the trade way longer than I , but I have noticed over my time that pretty much no 2 sparks do a PIR / EICR the same.
I reckon we could send 5 sparks to the same old house and we would get 5 different lot of findings and 5 very different lots of recommendations / Codes

Not sure any would give a board with an RCD main switch a C2, unless it was faulty.

 

[frontier219]

Thanks for the advice all, have decided the board will warrant a C3 and have sent a covering email to landlord/agent informing them of the report. I have also let them know that the EICR is not a replacement for an EIC and they may still need to provide this in future. Have quoted to upgrade to RCBO/SPD but I'm not holding out much hope looking at the rest of the flat!

 

[frontier219]

This doesn’t warrant a C2

Going by your logic most consumer units I test I’d have to give a C2 as most aren’t full RCBO with SPD

With respect, I never said it would be a C2 purely based on it having a single RCD, but because it had a single RCD installed recently. I accept that I was wrong with this, and that the age of installation is irrelevant, but I still maintain it shouldn't have been installed that way.

If you C2 all RCD boards then dual RCD boards will be C2 as well , which as you say we would be C2ing a lot of fairly new builds

Not at all, my point was that a single RCD is no longer compliant. A dual RCD is still compliant so it wouldn't warrant any kind of remark at all. Not that I like fitting them anymore when RCBOs are so much better.

 

[bennie]

With respect, I never said it would be a C2 purely based on it having a single RCD, but because it had a single RCD installed recently. I accept that I was wrong with this, and that the age of installation is irrelevant, but I still maintain it shouldn't have been installed that way.

Not at all, my point was that a single RCD is no longer compliant. A dual RCD is still compliant so it wouldn't warrant any kind of remark at all. Not that I like fitting them anymore when RCBOs are so much better.

Remind me again why it's not compliant and is that a statutory reg??

 

[frontier219]

Remind me again why it's not compliant and is that a statutory reg??

BS7671 314.1 and 531.3.2

None of BS7671 is statutory but it is still what we are required to follow - are you suggesting it's compliant right now to fit a single RCD consumer unit feeding one house/flat? Happy to be proved wrong but I'm fairly sure that's not the case?

 

[bennie]

BS7671 314.1 and 531.3.2

None of BS7671 is statutory but it is still what we are required to follow - are you suggesting it's compliant right now to fit a single RCD consumer unit feeding one house/flat? Happy to be proved wrong but I'm fairly sure that's not the case?

Not sure 314.1 says not to use them or 531.3.2. Can you be more specific.

 

[bennie]

BS7671 314.1 and 531.3.2

None of BS7671 is statutory but it is still what we are required to follow - are you suggesting it's compliant right now to fit a single RCD consumer unit feeding one house/flat? Happy to be proved wrong but I'm fairly sure that's not the case?

Remember in the new edition to be aware of the words should & shall.

 

[frontier219]

Not sure 314.1 says not to use them or 531.3.2. Can you be more specific.

If you're looking for a regulation that specifically says single RCD boards are not to be used then I agree, but 314.1 clause i, "to avoid danger and minimize inconvenience in case of a fault" would rule it out in my opinion.

 

[frontier219]

Remember in the new edition to be aware of the words should & shall.

There are no should's in the regs I quoted, only shalls...

 

[bennie]

There are no should's in the regs I quoted, only shalls...

Your right on both counts but your still wrong with your classification of the fault and nowhere does it say not to use them. In the right application they're fine. Unless your going to go round the tenants property and workout the earth leakage from all their appliances but even then it would be a C3 as it's only a nuisance. In other areas a board with an RCD main switch is the right choice. On an EICR we can put notes along with our classifications which should be done in a case like this. Yes they are all shalls as in divide circuits & minimise hazards but it still leaves it open so we can choose the best protective devices for what we are installing and at the time that was the best way so it's still a C3 with advice. RCD main switches are fine if that's what's required.