Can an EICR be unsatisfactory with only C3 codes?

[nrbham]

I recently had and EICR done and received an 'unsatisfactory' report due to not all circuits being RCD protected on the consumer unit. The consumer unit was installed in 2007 and complied with all wiring regulations at the time (image attached). Does it need to be upgraded? I have attached the EICR with personal details removed. The EICR was done for a property which is due to be rented out.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Tell the spark that filled in the test certs to go back beginning not filled out correctly
, how can they say unsatisfactory when it put down on observation sheet c3.
The spark needs to make it more clear
On the test certs regarding what is required rcd wise.

 

[timhoward]

I'd get in touch with the person who did that report, say you've taken advice, and
1) you can't have an unsatisfactory report with only C3's
2) the two C3's don't stack up anyway, RCD protection is not needed for fault protection as disconnection times are met on all circuits, and RCD protection is not needed for fire protection as it isn't a farm.
If they don't apologise for their mistake and issue a satisfactory one, then plan B would be to get a letter saying all (fabricated) remedial work has been carried out and the installation is now satisfactory. Any competent sparks could have a look and do that for you, and this meets the PRS scheme obligations.

What's the first half of the postcode? Someone might offer to help you.

 

[littlespark]

One of the main things he needed to fill in was serial numbers of test equipment, and he hasn’t even done that.

No tester name until circuit details, (which should have been redacted anyway)

Did you receive the last page? It explains when that unsatisfactory result only with C1 or C2.

I think they’re just looking for work by inventing problems.

 

[Julie.]

One of the main things he needed to fill in was serial numbers of test equipment, and he hasn’t even done that.

No tester name until circuit details, (which should have been redacted anyway)

Did you receive the last page? It explains when that unsatisfactory result only with C1 or C2.

I assume the op has removed that information as he has done a good job in removing all location and inspectors details.

 

[buzzlightyear]

assume the op has removed that information as he has done a good job in removing all location and inspectors details.

If look at the contractors details the lines have not been filled in because of the tram lines would have been masked.

 

[Julie.]

I'd get in touch with the person who did that report, say you've taken advice, and
1) you can't have an unsatisfactory report with only C3's
2) the two C3's don't stack up anyway, RCD protection is not needed for fault protection as disconnection times are met on all circuits, and RCD protection is not needed for fire protection as it isn't a farm.
If they don't apologise for their mistake and issue a satisfactory one, then plan B would be to get a letter saying all (fabricated) remedial work has been carried out and the installation is now satisfactory. Any competent sparks could have a look and do that for you, and this meets the PRS scheme obligations.

What's the first half of the postcode? Someone might offer to help you.

Spot on.

The inspector has managed so many important errors on this report it is fundamentally flawed.

A 0.06 ohm Ze would give over 3kA not 2.75kA

Since Zs = R1 + R2 + Ze I am not sure how he managed to get Zs to have lower values than R1 + R2 by a good margin!

He has also used the wrong values for maximum allowed Zs for the protective devices

I also find it difficult to believe he removed all the lamps etc in order to test between L-N and get 199Mohm


The fact that he shows RCD for additional protection as ok, when it's not there for all circuits, (yet not there for when it's not required) and doesn't appear to understand what he has measured or what it means, shows a fundamental lack of key knowledge that is required in order to undertake these sort of inspections.

If I was to believe the actual measured results, (and subject to not having done a visual assessment) I would suggest you have C3 for lack of rcd for additional protection on some circuits , and C3 for lack of rcd for some circuits having cables less than 50mm below the surface, and little else worth worrying about, none of which would give unsatisfactory!

 

[Julie.]

If look at the contractors details the lines have not been filled in because of the tram lines would have been masked.

I take it back anyway, as the inspector's name is actually on the results sheet!

So perhaps not as good a job as I thought.

 

[westward10]

Circuit 11 an untraced circuit indicates a 2.5 radial on a 32A protective device and that in itself to me is a Code 2. They have managed a Zs for it though.

 

[timhoward]

.

Circuit 11 an untraced circuit indicates a 2.5 radial on a 32A protective device and that in itself to me is a Code 2. They have managed a Zs for it though.

I wish I possessed the magic powers to be able to measure untraceable circuits.
I despair at peoples lack of ability to produce plausible fake results…

 

[Julie.]

Circuit 11 an untraced circuit indicates a 2.5 radial on a 32A protective device and that in itself to me is a Code 2. They have managed a Zs for it though.

Other than the nonsense of an incorrect Zs, without knowing what is on the end, there may not be a problem.

If it is a fixed load, or a single fused outlet/FCU then overload protection is not required, so we can't know for sure that it's incorrect

 

[westward10]

Maybe mixed up with the cooker which is on a 16A.

 

[Julie.]

Maybe mixed up with the cooker which is on a 16A.

Well he has signed it off with the job title of QS...

so it is fairly likely that he can't count!!!

 

[nrbham]

I assume the op has removed that information as he has done a good job in removing all location and inspectors details.

Hi, yes I removed the details of the electrician using image editing software.

 

[nrbham]

I'd get in touch with the person who did that report, say you've taken advice, and
1) you can't have an unsatisfactory report with only C3's
2) the two C3's don't stack up anyway, RCD protection is not needed for fault protection as disconnection times are met on all circuits, and RCD protection is not needed for fire protection as it isn't a farm.
If they don't apologise for their mistake and issue a satisfactory one, then plan B would be to get a letter saying all (fabricated) remedial work has been carried out and the installation is now satisfactory. Any competent sparks could have a look and do that for you, and this meets the PRS scheme obligations.

What's the first half of the postcode? Someone might offer to help you.

The first half of the postcode is B23.

 

[nrbham]

If look at the contractors details the lines have not been filled in because of the tram lines would have been masked.

He did fill in his name and company details, I was able to edit them out.

 

[nrbham]

I take it back anyway, as the inspector's name is actually on the results sheet!

So perhaps not as good a job as I thought.

Oops, guess I missed that one!