Code 1 Problems - Am I being Scammed?

[kamkam]

Looks like his maximum Zs for protective devices are incorrect too! he has put down 80% of tabulated values instead of the values quoted in the Regs eg 1.15 for 60898 32a (@80%) / 1.44 in regs.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Looks like his maximum Zs for protective devices are incorrect too! he has put down 80% of tabulated values instead of the values quoted in the Regs eg 1.15 for 60898 32a (@80%) / 1.44 in regs.

That's debatable.
I believe the NICEIC require the value quoted in BS7671, wheras NAPIT allow either that or the 80% value.
BS7671 doesn't require any value at all.
Myself, I'd prefer the 80% value, as it's clear to the client then that the measured values are within limits.

 

[IQ Electrical]

The schedule of inspections is the usual generic rubbish, I'm amazed that there's no tick in the earth electrode box.

He reports overrated protective devices yet ticks the 'choice & setting' box.

He reports 'no RCDs' yet ticks the 'presence of residual current devices' box.

He reports a flex supplied from a cooker circuit yet ticks the 'selection of conductors for volt drop and current carrying capacity' box.

I wonder by what method he verified voltage drop? (another tick).

Utter rubbish, not unusual for a domestic PIR, usually takes me about 10 seconds to decide, this one took slightly less....

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The schedule of inspections is the usual generic rubbish, I'm amazed that there's no tick in the earth electrode box.

He reports overrated protective devices yet ticks the 'choice & setting' box.

He reports 'no RCDs' yet ticks the 'presence of residual current devices' box.

He reports a flex supplied from a cooker circuit yet ticks the 'selection of conductors for volt drop and current carrying capacity' box.

I wonder by what method he verified voltage drop? (another tick).

Utter rubbish, not unusual for a domestic PIR, usually takes me about 10 seconds to decide, this one took slightly less....

Are you fence sitting IQ?

 

[kamkam]

That's debatable.
I believe the NICEIC require the value quoted in BS7671, wheras NAPIT allow either that or the 80% value.
BS7671 doesn't require any value at all.
Myself, I'd prefer the 80% value, as it's clear to the client then that the measured values are within limits.

Fair enough... I always put the 100% as we use NIC certs

 

[darkforces]

OK so whats the best way to get someone reputable from this forum out to me to get this done correctly?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

OK so whats the best way to get someone reputable from this forum out to me to get this done correctly?

First you have to consider whether the Agency will accept a new PIR.

 

[Octopus]

First you have to consider whether the Agency will accept a new PIR.

When you approach the agency, I'd recommend you have a printed copy of the ESC document to back up your thoughts. Obviously they should be aware of the document but some aren't.

 

[telectrix]

they wiil if he suggests using another agency.

 

[darkforces]

First you have to consider whether the Agency will accept a new PIR.

I don't see this being an issue. Once I explain to them that the person they reccomended made a complete bodge job of the report and that I will be getting my own guy to do it they will understand. As mentioned they dont have any affiliation with this electrician, he is just someone who has done some work for them in the past. Its likely they will cease to use this person.

Futhermore if the person I use from this forum comes and does a decent job I could put them forward as a more worthy candidate for for work like this in the future.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I don't see this being an issue. Once I explain to them that the person they reccomended made a complete bodge job of the report and that I will be getting my own guy to do it they will understand. As mentioned they dont have any affiliation with this electrician, he is just someone who has done some work for them in the past. Its likely they will cease to use this person.

Futhermore if the person I use from this forum comes and does a decent job I could put them forward as a more worthy candidate for for work like this in the future.

PM sent.

 

[Risteard]

I see he has identified U as 230V and Uo as 240V instead of U as N/A and Uo as 230V.

 

[JUD]

View attachment 7649

View attachment 7650

Heres the relevant pages of the report in image format. To be honest I dont mind paying the £150 + VAT for the cert but then having to pay additional for stuff that isnt needed is an issue for me.

A few things jump out at me. I haven't read all the previous posts in detail so some or all of them may have already been mentioned.

Test Results

80% values used for Maximum permitted EFLI
R1 + R2 for the two rings don't coincide with the r1 and r2

Inspections


Nominal Voltage U should be N/A for single phase and U[SUB]0[/SUB] should be 230V
Short circuit capacity of BS 88 fuse not entered. This info can be found in the OSG
Choice and setting of protective devices ticked even though he's given one of them a code 1
Presence of RCD ticked although he's said there isn't any
Selection of conductors for current carrying capacity and voltage drop ticked although he's given a code 1 to the hob igniter cable

 

[Sparky Ninja]

Make sure you keep us informed on the outcome of this please.

Also make sure the observations recorded are understandable and explained to you as the client.

 

[JamesBrownLive]

Is the cooker ignition circuit a problem because it is not fused down?

Cheers

 

[telectrix]

Is the cooker ignition circuit a problem because it is not fused down?

Cheers

looks like it.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Had a look at the property the other day.
A number of problems with the PIR.
To start off with, the supply is TN-C-S, not TN-S, there's a sticker on the cut-out, and the head is not sealed, so the neutral/earth link is easily viewed by opening the lid.
The main switch is rated at 240V but the inspector has noted 230V.
The Main fuse, is type II, but the inspector hasn't noted the type, or the Short-circuit capacity.
The circuits on the PIR are numbered backwards, circuit 10 next to the main switch, circuit 1 furthest from the main switch (MK Sentry CU).
On a couple of socket circuits, the number of points served are incorrect, on one circuit it's listed as 7 when there are 9, and on another 6 when there are only 3. No idea where the other socket has appeared from?
The Inspector missed the lack of earth continuity on one of the socket-outlets, a spur which I have disconnected and blanked off.
The unknown circuit is for the combi boiler.
Circuit 9 which has had a code 1 applied because it has an OPD of 32A, and the inspector reccomends 16A, is actually a RFC wired in 2.5mm² T&E, so no code at all.
There is one socket-outlet in the hall by the front door on the ground floor, which is likely to be used for mobile equipment outdoors which I have changed for an RCD socket.
I've stuck some lables on the CU.
No warning lables required for two versions of wiring, as it's all Red and Black, no RCD warning lable required, as there isn't an RCD in the CU.
I've listed the lack of RCD protection for the socket-outlets intended for general use by ordinary persons, the lack of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower and the lack of RCD protection for cables concealed in walls at a depth less than 50mm all as code C3s (decided to do it as an EICR).
Haven't coded the heat detector in the hall, as it's not within the scope of BS7671.
Haven't coded the 0.75mm² flex for the hob ignition, as it's a fixed load, that is unlikely to be subjected to overcurrent.

 

[telectrix]

and that's known as doing the job right.

 

[SW1970]

Spin - obviously without exposing the name of the previous PIR "inspector" or his company, can you reveal whether he is an incompetent one man show or belonging to one of these bucket shops turning out PIRs by the hour? Cheers.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Had a look at the property the other day.
A number of problems with the PIR.
To start off with, the supply is TN-C-S, not TN-S, there's a sticker on the cut-out, and the head is not sealed, so the neutral/earth link is easily viewed by opening the lid.
The main switch is rated at 240V but the inspector has noted 230V.
The Main fuse, is type II, but the inspector hasn't noted the type, or the Short-circuit capacity.
The circuits on the PIR are numbered backwards, circuit 10 next to the main switch, circuit 1 furthest from the main switch (MK Sentry CU).
On a couple of socket circuits, the number of points served are incorrect, on one circuit it's listed as 7 when there are 9, and on another 6 when there are only 3. No idea where the other socket has appeared from?
The Inspector missed the lack of earth continuity on one of the socket-outlets, a spur which I have disconnected and blanked off.
The unknown circuit is for the combi boiler.
Circuit 9 which has had a code 1 applied because it has an OPD of 32A, and the inspector reccomends 16A, is actually a RFC wired in 2.5mm² T&E, so no code at all.
There is one socket-outlet in the hall by the front door on the ground floor, which is likely to be used for mobile equipment outdoors which I have changed for an RCD socket.
I've stuck some lables on the CU.
No warning lables required for two versions of wiring, as it's all Red and Black, no RCD warning lable required, as there isn't an RCD in the CU.
I've listed the lack of RCD protection for the socket-outlets intended for general use by ordinary persons, the lack of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower and the lack of RCD protection for cables concealed in walls at a depth less than 50mm all as code C3s (decided to do it as an EICR).
Haven't coded the heat detector in the hall, as it's not within the scope of BS7671.
Haven't coded the 0.75mm² flex for the hob ignition, as it's a fixed load, that is unlikely to be subjected to overcurrent.

Nice one Spin, sounds spot on and makes an absolute mockery of the **** that was compiled previously.