EICR - Applying regs retrospectively

[dingdong]

Just had an EICR done and C2 (dangerous) applied to 3-way consumer unit which is exclusively for 3 x Storage Heaters. Pic below.

Yes its plastic, and fused BUT compliant with the regs at the time it was installed and is not in dangerous condition.

Should be a C3 as recommended to replace with CU & RCBOs compliant with current regs.

The regs state "Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."

Electrician wont budge and am minded not to pay him as he has interpreted the regs incorrectly and raise as complaint with NAPIT.

So why has this been marked as a C2? What you you award it?

 

[westward10]

What does the Code 2 actually state?

 

[dingdong]

What does the Code 2 actually state?

C2 for IP rating & fire rating of the CU 'cos its plastic and older. Plus C2 as no RCD protection. However, IP rated and metal CUs + RCDs were not required in the regs when the CU was installed. The electrician has put in his cover email that the installation itself is not dangerous....which contradicts the C2 !

 

[westward10]

The fuse shield is there which would rectify the IP rating, looks like it just needs a replacement cover screw. These covers were never intended for IP protection but to prevent hot wire splatter should a rewireable fuse rupture which you don't have. Most electricians would Code 3 the consumer unit being not fire retardant but these things are down to personal judgement. The fact he has stated the installation is not dangerous is indeed a slight contradiction with the Code 2.

 

[snowhead]

He's done the EICR so he is entitled to be paid.

This is for your tenanted property presumably, so you need a satisfactory EICR?

Have you got a wider picture of the C.U showing it's surroundings?

Is the lack of fuse shield the only thing mentioned re I.P rating, no holes in the top, bottom or sides of it?
Is the consumer unit under stairs or in a passageway?

The reg you've quoted uses, This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

 

[dingdong]

He's done the EICR so he is entitled to be paid.

This is for your tenanted property presumably, so you need a satisfactory EICR?

Have you got a wider picture of the C.U showing it's surroundings?

Is the lack of fuse shield the only thing mentioned re I.P rating, no holes in the top, bottom or sides of it?
Is the consumer unit under stairs or in a passageway?

The reg you've quoted uses, This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

The electrician told me that the installation is not compliant with current regs. and has marked the EICR accordingly. This is incorrect and why his EICR is considered not fit for purpose.

Whilst he has backed down on the need to change the CU on the right (plastic), he is refusing to mark the Storage Heater CU on left as C3 as is plastic and does not have RCDs.

The installation is sound and complies with regs. applicable at time of installation. No damage to the CUs, securely fixed etc.

(Covers are back on, blanking plate re-instated etc.)

 

[westward10]

He seems to contradict himself that the plastic CU to the right is fine but the other is not based on it being plastic and no RCD which the majority would deem a Code 3.
Can we see the Report with any personal information redacted.

 

[timhoward]

C2 for IP rating & fire rating of the CU 'cos its plastic and older

It sounds as though it is the IP rating that is the remaining issue.
Logically, if the CU on the right isn't a C2 for not being made of a non-combustible material (reg 421.1.16) then it's tough to argue the one on the left is.

How big is this hole:

Any more like it on the perimeter?
If there are holes in the CU a child could put a finger in then it's a reasonable C2 in my view.

Plus C2 as no RCD protection.

Assuming the heaters are not using plugs and sockets, politely ask which which part of section 411 requires the circuit to be RCD protected.

Napit will tell you to put the complaint in writing to him first, and they will only get involved if this doesn't get anywhere.

 

[westward10]

Good spot @timhoward.

 

[dingdong]

It sounds as though it is the IP rating that is the remaining issue.
Logically, if the CU on the right isn't a C2 for not being made of a non-combustible material (reg 421.1.16) then it's tough to argue the one on the left is.

How big is this hole:
View attachment 111818
Any more like it on the perimeter?
If there are holes in the CU a child could put a finger in then it's a reasonable C2 in my view.


Assuming the heaters are not using plugs and sockets, politely ask which which part of section 411 requires the circuit to be RCD protected.

Napit will tell you to put the complaint in writing to him first, and they will only get involved if this doesn't get anywhere.

Good stuff Tim. The part you circled is not what it seems - its not a hole or damage. Also both CUs are up high (too high for current regs !). Heaters are hard wired. I will ask him re 411. Thanks !