Landlord's EICR query

[frontier219]

Afternoon all,

Just wondering what everyone's response to the following scenario is.
Letting agents have asked us to carry out an EICR. There was a previous failed EICR that has been lost and isn't able to be retrieved. We were told that the landlord had had their own electrician in to carry out the required remedial works, but that they are no longer in contact and cannot get the certificate (I know, huge red flag). We have a very good working relationship with the agents so agreed, reluctantly, that we would carry out the EICR.

Naturally there were a few problems, but the biggest one is that it appears that a new consumer unit has been fitted. It's a fully metal Amendment 3 compliant enclosure so has to be no older than 2018, but they have fitted a single RCD main switch, no surge protection etc. Obviously we aren't fully aware of what has happened before, and under normal circumstances a single RCD on a residential EICR might only raise a C3. However, on the basis that the CU must be no older than 4-5 years, this should at the very least have a split load board. Therefore I'm giving the installation a C2 on this basis.

Anyone come across similar and handled it differently?

 

[DPG]

Afternoon all,

Just wondering what everyone's response to the following scenario is.
Letting agents have asked us to carry out an EICR. There was a previous failed EICR that has been lost and isn't able to be retrieved. We were told that the landlord had had their own electrician in to carry out the required remedial works, but that they are no longer in contact and cannot get the certificate (I know, huge red flag). We have a very good working relationship with the agents so agreed, reluctantly, that we would carry out the EICR.

Naturally there were a few problems, but the biggest one is that it appears that a new consumer unit has been fitted. It's a fully metal Amendment 3 compliant enclosure so has to be no older than 2018, but they have fitted a single RCD main switch, no surge protection etc. Obviously we aren't fully aware of what has happened before, and under normal circumstances a single RCD on a residential EICR might only raise a C3. However, on the basis that the CU must be no older than 4-5 years, this should at the very least have a split load board. Therefore I'm giving the installation a C2 on this basis.

Anyone come across similar and handled it differently?

But you can't decide the code based on the age of the CU / when it was installed.

What is the regulation you are using to give a C2?

 

[frontier219]

314.1 and 531.3.2 essentially remove the option of fitting a single RCD consumer unit, don't they?

 

[timhoward]

The rationale has to be about safety, not compliance with regs at a given moment in time.
Otherwise we wouldn't be able to code things like VOELCB's that were fitted before 1986, or class 1 light fittings without a CPC that were fitted before 1966. Both were compliant at the time but we now realise they are not safe.

I agree there are regs about avoiding nuisance tripping, but do you consider having an RCD main switch to be "potentially dangerous"? Or would you merely recommend this is improved?
I agree there are regs about surge protection, but there have always been circumstances where it needn't be fitted, and there still are, and again is it potentially dangerous? Or would you recommend this is improved?
We are told to inspect against the current regs but I'd be surprised if either of them constituted a potentially dangerous situation and they'd likely be a C3 from me.

 

[frontier219]

@timhoward
This is a fair point with regard to C2 and whether you could argue potentially dangerous or not, but this is a single RCD board that has been installed recently with no certification given. Surely if the installation was never compliant to the edition of the regs under which it was fitted, it can't be deemed satisfactory?

 

[DPG]

@timhoward
This is a fair point with regard to C2 and whether you could argue potentially dangerous or not, but this is a single RCD board that has been installed recently with no certification given. Surely if the installation was never compliant to the edition of the regs under which it was fitted, it can't be deemed satisfactory?

The date that it was installed and the availability (or not) of a previous cert don't really affect the choice of coding though.

And there isn't really an argument that this is dangerous or potentially dangerous is there?

 

[frontier219]

So there's no comeback then for the person who has changed the consumer unit in the first place, or the landlord that has gone with the cheapest quote from someone who can't/won't certify their own work? That consumer unit should never have been installed, but now that it has, it's 'satisfactory'. That doesn't sit right with me and opens up a can of worms in that any landlord could do any old thing, and as long as it doesn't raise anything worse than a C3 will get a satisfactory certificate, even when we know the installation wasn't carried out to the correct regulations?

 

[DPG]

So there's no comeback then for the person who has changed the consumer unit in the first place, or the landlord that has gone with the cheapest quote from someone who can't/won't certify their own work? That consumer unit should never have been installed, but now that it has, it's 'satisfactory'. That doesn't sit right with me and opens up a can of worms in that any landlord could do any old thing, and as long as it doesn't raise anything worse than a C3 will get a satisfactory certificate, even when we know the installation wasn't carried out to the correct regulations?

Whether the customer wants to make any complaints to the previous installer is up to them. It has no bearing on any future EICR that is carried out.

I agree though, it sounds like a substandard install.

 

[timhoward]

@timhoward
This is a fair point with regard to C2 and whether you could argue potentially dangerous or not, but this is a single RCD board that has been installed recently with no certification given. Surely if the installation was never compliant to the edition of the regs under which it was fitted, it can't be deemed satisfactory?

A lot of the time we have no idea if something was certified and it's a rare luxury to have access to any previous records.
The way I look at it is that we 'measure' the installation against the current regs.
But my opinion supersedes whatever the regs say about levels of danger and it's my opinion that counts!

Best Practise Guide 4 is quite clear that it's the level of danger that determines whether it is satisfactory or not. (Otherwise it wouldn't and couldn't recommend solutions to issues that are actually completely non-compliant)
In some circumstances even a Wylex Rewireable board could be deemed satisfactory.

So there's no comeback then for the person who has changed the consumer unit in the first place, or the landlord that has gone with the cheapest quote from someone who can't/won't certify their own work?

You have to separate preference, justice, and EICRs!
If your customer quoted BPG 4 back at you it would get difficult to justify coding those as C2.

 

[timhoward]

If it helps, imagine the EICR is for a prospective purchaser. And remember that EICR's shouldn't have different results depending on circumstances.