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

[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.