EICR downgraded by Landlord’s Agent from C2 to C3

[LauraCanning]

I am a tenant. We recently had an EICR done which has come back as Unsatisfactory with numerous C2 issues. However, our landlords agent has stated that they aren’t actually C2 issues so don’t require any work doing. Apparently in accordance with the Best Practice Guide 4 they believe they can downgrade them to C3. But the documentation still says they are a C2 and overall unsatisfactory.

Can they do this? All sounds a bit odd to me!

 

[westward10]

No they cannot amend a Report whether they have the technical knowledge or not without physically redoing the EICR. Some people believe the Best Practice Guides give them this technical knowledge, it does not.

 

[Steffano]

I am a tenant. We recently had an EICR done which has come back as Unsatisfactory with numerous C2 issues. However, our landlords agent has stated that they aren’t actually C2 issues so don’t require any work doing. Apparently in accordance with the Best Practice Guide 4 they believe they can downgrade them to C3. But the documentation still says they are a C2 and overall unsatisfactory.

Can they do this? All sounds a bit odd to me!

They're just trying to save on the remedial costs.

 

[littlespark]

Can you tell us what the issues were?

If you’ve got the report there, scan it in, but redact any personal details of yourself, the property address and the company doing the report.

Also if you have photographs.

We are quite experienced here and can usually tell a C2 from a C3 visually.

 

[Rockingit]

One thing I can guarantee about this: One of the two conflicting opinions will be pulling a fast one!

 

[LauraCanning]

 

[littlespark]

How “potentially dangerous” are items 6 and 7?

Lack of RCD does not make a circuit dangerous, but it’s nice to have when it’s a rental property.

However, item 11, which is an RCD, must operate correctly if fitted, So that one I agree with.

 

[westward10]

I'm not quite sure how they can alter items 7 and 11 as people would almost certainly deem them C2 and I doubt the Best Practice Guide would suggest this.

 

[LauraCanning]

This is DB1, the oldest fuseboard that is the subject to most of the discussions.

 

[brianmoooore]

11 is a definite C2, although a 2nd test might result in a satisfactory result.
6 and 7 depend on the date of installation, since, however much we'd like some of them to be, later editions of the regs are not retrospective
Looking at DB1, I'm fairly sure that this predates any requirements for RCDs, and while I'd strongly recommend it's replacement, if it was fitted properly, and hasn't deteriorated, then I couldn't insist.

 

[westward10]

It is very odd the landlords agent is trying to override this.

 

[LauraCanning]

It is very odd the landlords agent is trying to override this.

I can't see how they actually can unless they have another EICR carried out - is that correct?

What I haven't said is the EICR from 5years ago had the same issues and none of the works were done then as they also 'downgraded' the C2s. It's all only come to light now because of some comments made on the day by the electrician that was carrying out the EICR.

 

[brianmoooore]

The lack of RCD protection is similar to a pre 1971 classic car. A car made prior to 1971 does not require seatbelts to be fitted, but most owners of such cars have fitted them anyway, although there's no law requiring them to.

 

[westward10]

Does the agent have a vested interest in this property because I cannot see what they would achieve by doing this. As it stands you have a valid EICR they cannot change and they are obliged to carry out these works it might be an idea to contact Citizens Advice.

 

[LauraCanning]

Does the agent have a vested interest in this property because I cannot see what they would achieve by doing this. As it stands you have a valid EICR they cannot change and they are obliged to carry out these works it might be an idea to contact Citizens Advice.

So yes the agent is the one that would have to rectify the issues and therefore all the costs would sit with them. They are renowned for bodged jobs throughout properties and trying to do things cheaply.

 

[westward10]

Do they own it.

 

[LauraCanning]

Do they own it.

No they don't. They just manage the properties on behalf of the landlord who has several thousand.

 

[littlespark]

Why is there a Portable Appliance test sticker on a fuse board?

Ultimately it will be the landlord that has to pay…. Unless they already pay some maintenance charge to the agents to cover repairs, and the agent makes more money if they don’t pay any out to get the repairs done.

 

[DPG]

No they don't. They just manage the properties on behalf of the landlord who has several thousand.

Why does the agent have to pay for remedial work/maintenance?

 

[littlespark]

The excrement will surely strike the spinning blades if there’s ever a fire or injury put down to the electrics.
The electricians will have a copy of the reports, which will show the problems that haven’t been rectified, and any investigation will tear through the agents handling of this.
I don’t know if it’s the agent now, the landlord or both that are at fault.
Be simpler for them to just pay the money, get the boards changed and not have to worry about trying to dodge their responsibility’s.

I’m surprised the agent doesn’t have his own “electrician” that can pass the whole lot without comment.


That would be an interesting read.

 

[sxdave]

Before I say how I think the Agent may be trying to wriggle out of item 11 being a C2 I want to say that I think the C2 items should be addressed and corrected by the agent and that as has been said previously only doing another EICR can result in a different classification.

Obviously if the RCD does not trip at all at its rated current then it is faulty and should be replaced. Do we have any test results for the RCD?

Anyway here is what I think the agent is trying to use to wriggle out of C2 classification:
First I will assume the RCD is only for additional protection. Then referring to Regulation 643.8 "Effectiveness is deemed to have been verified...disconnects within 40mS when tested at a current equal to or higher than five times its rated residual operating current". So if the RCD disconnected within 40mS at 5x its rated current it is deemed to be effective.

 

[westward10]

Before I say how I think the Agent may be trying to wriggle out of item 11 being a C2 I want to say that I think the C2 items should be addressed and corrected by the agent and that as has been said previously only doing another EICR can result in a different classification.

Obviously if the RCD does not trip at all at its rated current then it is faulty and should be replaced. Do we have any test results for the RCD?

Anyway here is what I think the agent is trying to use to wriggle out of C2 classification:
First I will assume the RCD is only for additional protection. Then referring to Regulation 643.8 "Effectiveness is deemed to have been verified...disconnects within 40mS when tested at a current equal to or higher than five times its rated residual operating current". So if the RCD disconnected within 40mS at 5x its rated current it is deemed to be effective.

You are probably correct in that assumption but unfortunately it is a Code 2 in the Report and the agent does not have the powers to change this. It could also be a 100ma rcd and the individual misread it, does not trip at ×1 on a 30ma test but it will at ×5.

 

[timhoward]

If there's sockets capable of supplying equipment outside, or a lack of supplementary bonding in a bathroom then the lack of RCD is a definite C2 for most people. If neither of these apply then this is one where (as commented above) it met the regs when installed and is safe in as much as the wiring shouldn't catch fire. I try and advise landlords that protecting people from electric shock in fault conditions requires more than the current CU offers, and modern units have a lot more to offer if anything goes wrong.

It sounds as though the other consumer unit is more recent as it apparently has an SPD that may or may not be working. I'd be a bit surprised if it was an 100ma RCD; with an old metal CU with no RCD protection next to it it is unlikely to be TT. So item 11 really needs looking at.

Do you have the full original report? You could try telling the agent you will report them to the local authority for violating PRS legislation, enclosing the report, as there is supposed to now be a 28 day clock starting to have the remedial work done.

 

[littlespark]

Although most of us agree sockets that may feed outside equipment should have RCD protection, it would only be a C3.
if you C2 that and give it as a reason, you would need to C2 every instance of requiring RCD such as all circuits within a bathroom, all circuits feeding a luminaire etc etc.

 

[UNG]

This is where the PRS legislation fails the tenant by having no clear enforcement route

 

[timhoward]

Although most of us agree sockets that may feed outside equipment should have RCD protection, it would only be a C3.

I think BPG 4 suggests a C2 for this.
The regs have required this for nearly 15 years now, much longer than the requirement for domestic lighting circuits to have rcd protection (which bpg 4 suggests is a C3) so the two things aren’t entirely equal in one sense.

 

[littlespark]

I think BPG 4 suggests a C2 for this.
The regs have required this for nearly 15 years now, much longer than the requirement for domestic lighting circuits to have rcd protection (which bpg 4 suggests is a C3) so the two things aren’t entirely equal in one sense.

“Suggests” a C2 and that’s just a best practice guide.

An EICR is not retrospective… so it doesn’t matter if it’s 5 or 15 years old regs. (Or 50 for that matter)

C3, but I would “highly” recommend improvement.

 

[baldelectrician]

I would code item 3 a C2 as you should not be able to stick your finger in the top of a consumer unit.

 

[littlespark]

I would code item 3 a C2 as you should not be able to stick your finger in the top of a consumer unit.

Good spot…. I thought it was stuffed with caulk.

Strange that the fuse cover has been cut open, as if the fuses were at one time replaced with the push in circuit breakers… but are now back to fuses?

 

[James]

Good spot…. I thought it was stuffed with caulk.

Strange that the fuse cover has been cut open, as if the fuses were at one time replaced with the push in circuit breakers… but are now back to fuses?

Pesky circuit breakers that keep tripping
may have been changed back to fuse wire holders with copper “fuse” wire links installed?