Unsatisfactory EICR - 'No RCD Protection', 'CCU not AM3 compliant', 'Water Bond not Attached'

[cherry81]

Hi, I have an Unsatisfactory EICR with the following observations (full report attached, with key details blanked) - the apartment block was built in 1995 and there was some rewiring in 2010 - are these genuine reasons to fail the EICR? Contacted the inspector who quoted £695 for remedial work and a 5 year satisfactory certificate (which set alarm bells ringing). Thanks for any advice - I'm happy to proceed, but not knowing anything about this, I wanted to check here first.

1 No RCD Protection - Socket outlets C2
2 No RCD Protection special location C2
3 No RCD Protection - cables burried in walls C3
4 CCU not AM3 Compliant (Plastic Consumer unit) C3
5 No heat detector installed in kitchen N/A
6 Water bond not attached C2

 

[telectrix]

looks about right to me. those codes are exactly what i would give . if it's rented accommodation, 5 years or change of tenancy is stipulated.

 

[Strima]

1 No RCD Protection - Socket outlets C2 Is this a ground floor flat with potential for powering equipment outside?
2 No RCD Protection special location C2
3 No RCD Protection - cables burried in walls C3
4 CCU not AM3 Compliant (Plastic Consumer unit) C3
5 No heat detector installed in kitchen N/A
6 Water bond not attached C2

All the above seem reasonable, my comment in red on number 1.

What does his quote include, new CU etc?

 

[telectrix]

I'd still C2 any socket circuit without RCD protection, metal knives in toasters etc.

 

[cherry81]

Thanks for the quick replies!

Here's the details of the quote (he came back with a slightly lower price):
We could not install a heat detector and that just a recommendation but we would still need to change the consumer unit to give the rcd protection this we can do for £600 including a 5 year satisfactory certificate

Sounds like you guys think this is reasonable? really appreciate you looking at it

PS: 2nd floor flat

 

[telectrix]

about right for Bandit Country ( south of the Severn).

 

[westward10]

Interesting that the inspection schedules tick everything Coded as satisfactory.

 

[ferg]

It all looks pretty reasonable. The only possible debate is around the C2 for socket outlets on a flat that isn't ground floor. Ultimately it's down to the inspector who is there at the time.

 

[cherry81]

Ok thanks all, i'll bite the bullet...not like i was gonna spend that money on holiday any time soon!

 

[buzzlightyear]

the end of the day its down the test engineer what he thinks at the time . quote NICEIC.

 

[telectrix]

i worry about you, buzz. your posts are getting more sensible by the day. are you on the change? no smileys available .

 

[baldelectrician]

Interesting that the inspection schedules tick everything Coded as satisfactory.

I thought that also
He has
3.7 ticked but there is no effective water bond
4.4 is ticked- yet plastic consumer unit (C3 if OK and no signs of thermal damage)
4.10 is ticked did he add a 6 monthly notice?
4.19 is ticked yet RCD's are present on one circuit in the consumer unit
5.2 is ticked (does he have x ray vision to see all the cable routes below floors / behind walls?)
5.12.1 -5.12.3- he has picked this as a C2 yet has ticked it as satisfactory outcome ???
5.12.5 - bathroom lights not RCD protected but ticked to say OK

Pretty poor standard of EICR report (still an unsatisfactory IMO)

 

[Dartlec]

I thought that also
He has
3.7 ticked but there is no effective water bond
4.4 is ticked- yet plastic consumer unit (C3 if OK and no signs of thermal damage)
4.10 is ticked did he add a 6 monthly notice?
4.19 is ticked yet RCD's are present on one circuit in the consumer unit
5.2 is ticked (does he have x ray vision to see all the cable routes below floors / behind walls?)
5.12.1 -5.12.3- he has picked this as a C2 yet has ticked it as satisfactory outcome ???
5.12.5 - bathroom lights not RCD protected but ticked to say OK

Pretty poor standard of EICR report (still an unsatisfactory IMO)

It was the 60kVA demand that I noticed - 260ish Amps!

Looks like an older version of Easycert, which is what I use, so just the wrong dropdown chosen, but still shows that it wasn't checked over that carefully.

And clearly some of the tick boxes are incorrectly ticked.

Does make me wonder if the water bond was tested for, or just not visible. Most flats are bonded somewhere (or run in plastic). They weren't visible at the pipework in the flat I checked yesterday (though cables were in consumer unit) but a test verified they were effectively bonded.

Also, according to the test schedule, there doesn't appear to be a lighting circuit?

Did they specify what the special location was that lacked RCD protection? If supplementary bonding was in place (3.8 on schedule is ticked) then lack of RCD protection to lights needn't be a C2

Likewise for appliance sockets on a 2nd floor flat I think C2 is harsh, but of course there may be other factors involved.

The issue is that the engineering judgement of the inspector may be perfectly valid and reasonable - but the EICR doesn't really reflect that.

The price quoted doesn't seem too bad for a board change and other remedial work, but I would enquire what it includes. At that price I'd hope it would be type A RCBOs with Surge Protection, not a dual RCD board with type AC RCDs from Screwfix.