Jump to content
Tarmfield

EICR RCD question

Recommended Posts

Tarmfield

Hi,

 

I just got an EICR completed for a rental property and it has a C2 on the summary page for 4.18 RCD protection, I have a couple of questions n this one as i think they are potentially looking for work to do. The main body of the report in the details section the same 4.18 is listed as a C3, not a C2, also the text in the summary has it listed as recommended for improvement, it almost seems as if someone has changed the C3 to a C2 and not done it properly?

 

  1. Is a split load box with all socket circuits RCD protected a C3 or a C2 (circuits not protected by RCD are lighting and hard wired cooker)
  2. Is it a valid EICR output to have a different rating n the inspection schedule to the summary page?
  3. Is the text on the summary page generated by the code - would a genuine C2 have wording of Potentially dangerous rather than recommended improvement?

 

Images attached of sections of report and CU - which they have quoted a replacement cost of 985 +VAT to replace, also seems a bit steep?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarmfield

I can attach anything by the looks of it - looks like i need 10 posts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch

Sticking my neck out here I would say that the C2 you have should really be a C3

 

Take a look through this guide

 

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/2149/bpg4-1.pdf

 

you certainly don’t need a new fuseboard

Edited by Murdoch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarmfield

That was my thought, then looking at the fact that its a C3 on the details and the text on the summary page says Recommended improvement, but has been amended to a C2 got my suspicions up that someone may have either mistakenly transcribed it, or worse, upped it on the summary but not changed the wording to generate an expensive, and likely unnecessary CU replacement

 

1452621807_InkedSummarycloseup_LI.thumb.jpg.b1553d2c9f65778c51e78c6752303cd6.jpg job?

 

Is anyone familiar with the SW - does it autogenerate the descriptions on the summary sheet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
10 minutes ago, Tarmfield said:

That was my thought, then looking at the fact that its a C3 on the details and the text on the summary page says Recommended improvement, but has been amended to a C2 got my suspicions up that someone may have either mistakenly transcribed it, or worse, upped it on the summary but not changed the wording to generate an expensive, and likely unnecessary CU replacement

 

1452621807_InkedSummarycloseup_LI.thumb.jpg.b1553d2c9f65778c51e78c6752303cd6.jpg job?

 

Is anyone familiar with the SW - does it autogenerate the descriptions on the summary sheet?


not familiar with that software but you should question this IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sharpend

Personally in this instance I would contact their registration body technical line and ask the question, you then have something to go back to the company with that relates to them. This way they’d be less inclined to blag you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarmfield

That's my thinking as well, I have questioned it, their response is that the detail (C3 on P8) is wrong - but that doesn't sit right with me looking at the description text which would align to a C3 item (Like every line above it for stickers??? does and are allC3)

 

The cynic in me says someone has changed it to generate work, the benefit of the doubt version is it's a typo or error on the summary and unintentional.

 

It seems like it was definitely coded as a C3 originally and the summary text was generated showing this, but this has been changed after the inspection to the C2 without changing the other fields which smacks of work generation, or something being changed after the fact.

 

How could I tell which is the relevant registration body to to contact - there is a registration number in the report, but no body or organization listed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sharpend

Did they have anything with NICEIC/Napit/Stroma/ECA ? 
you could look them up and see if they have a website that will give any details of their registration body? 
 

I would ask them if the CU complies with the regulations at time of install, then ask if the EICR is retrospectively applied with regards to Current regulations to an existing installation. 
 

it is my belief that the EICR is carried out to current regulation, which means most properties will not have a current regulation compliant installation, however that in itself does not make it an unsatisfactory report. This is where so many modern sparks do not know how to apply the relevance of the report codings. 
is your board compliant to today -No

is your board any less safe than when installed- Not based on their report. 
would it be wise to recommend an upgrade- probably for increased safety aspects

is it necessary for it to be upgraded - no 

 

as extracted from Murdochs link 

 

Code C3 - Improvement recommended
This code should be used to indicate that, whilst an observed deficiency is not considered to be a source of immediate or potential danger, improvement would contribute to a significant enhancement of the safety of the electrical installation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sharpend

Following on from Murdochs link:

Code C3 - Improvement recommended
 •
Absence of RCD protection for a socket-outlet that is unlikely to supply portable or mobile equipment for use outdoors, does not serve
a location containing a bath or shower, and the use of which is otherwise not considered by the inspector to result in potential danger. (Note: Code C2 would apply if the circuit supplied a socket-outlet in a location containing a bath or shower in accordance with Regulation 701.512.3)
Absence of RCD protection for cables installed at a depth of less than 50 mm from a surface of a wall or partition where the cables do not incorporate an earthed metallic covering, are not enclosed in earthed metalwork, or are not mechanically protected against penetration by nails and the like.
Absence of RCD protection for AC final circuits supplying luminaires in domestic household premises
Absence of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower where satisfactory supplementary bonding is present

 

And:

Items worthy of note that do not warrant a classification code (These comments should be recorded on the EICR in the observations section)
 •



Presence of a consumer unit or similar switchgear made from combustible material (e.g. plastic) that is not inside a non- combustible enclosure and which is NOT:
Located under wooden staircase, or
within a sole route of escape from the premises (Note: If unsatisfactory connections are found during inspection, this would warrant a code C2 classification to be recorded

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarmfield

Thanks for that - I will check out their website and see who they are registered with - the report was arranged through British Gas but looks like it was outsourced to a local firm.

 

They quoted 985 +VAT for the repairs, which is essentially replace the current CU with a compliant one, their first response  was "I have looked at the report and there is a lack of RCD protection so to provide this the electrician will need to supply and install a new fuseboard with full RCD protection" when i queried the lack of they came back with "It does not have enough and your existing board cannot incorporate any more."

 

Does 985 +VAT seem expensive to replace a consumer unit with 9 circuits and easy access (Its in a downstairs cupboard, easily accessible) and are they correct in saying the current board cannot have any RCD added - it seems there is currently at least 3 spare slots in the CU (pictured below)

 

Consumer_Unit.jpg.1070cb0a9905b9b8c822cf72683bedad.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sharpend

I wouldn’t pay that for a board change.

 

I would refer them to Murdochs link and highlight the areas I’ve listed and ask them for their comments. 
If they are enlisted by BG you can bet they’ll be NICEIC or Napit registered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
18 minutes ago, Sharpend said:


Absence of RCD protection for cables installed at a depth of less than 50 mm from a surface of a wall or partition where the cables do not incorporate an earthed metallic covering, are not enclosed in earthed metalwork, or are not mechanically protected against penetration by nails and the like.
Absence of RCD protection for AC final circuits supplying luminaires in domestic household premises
Absence of RCD protection for circuits of a location containing a bath or shower where satisfactory supplementary bonding is present

 

C3?

16 minutes ago, Tarmfield said:

Thanks for that - I will check out their website and see who they are registered with - the report was arranged through British Gas but looks like it was outsourced to a local firm.

 

They quoted 985 +VAT for the repairs, which is essentially replace the current CU with a compliant one, their first response  was "I have looked at the report and there is a lack of RCD protection so to provide this the electrician will need to supply and install a new fuseboard with full RCD protection" when i queried the lack of they came back with "It does not have enough and your existing board cannot incorporate any more."

 

Does 985 +VAT seem expensive to replace a consumer unit with 9 circuits and easy access (Its in a downstairs cupboard, easily accessible) and are they correct in saying the current board cannot have any RCD added - it seems there is currently at least 3 spare slots in the CU (pictured below)

 

Consumer_Unit.jpg.1070cb0a9905b9b8c822cf72683bedad.jpg

 

The 5 MCBs could be replaced with RCBO 's 

 

So I question the competence of the company who seem to be sacrficing technical knowledge for profit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sharpend
7 hours ago, Murdoch said:

 

C3?

 

 


It was lifted from your link as a C3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fleeting

There are either some typos on there or it has just been compiled incorrectly. The C3 is allotted to 4.18 which is rcds for fault protection, not likely to be applicable. The Code should be against 4.19 which they have allotted a "pass".

Observations also refer to fault protection which I would say is incorrect unless ADS is not satisfied by the existing protective devices, it should be additional protection. 

Can you show the schedule of test results.

Edited by Fleeting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fleeting

If you take the Report at face value and it's literal interpretation and assuming ADS is satisfied as it stands then that observation requires no remedial works. This is entirely down to an incorrectly compiled Report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Murdoch
9 minutes ago, Fleeting said:

If you take the Report at face value and it's literal interpretation and assuming ADS is satisfied as it stands then that observation requires no remedial works. This is entirely down to an incorrectly compiled Report. 

 

Agree - but this poor EICR is so typical of the carp reports produced by too many sparks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidney

I'm going to stick my neck out and say 4.18 doesn't even apply in this situation, depending upon the earthing arrangements for the installation.

 

They more than likely mean RCDs with 30mA for additional protection for lighting circuits in a domestic property. This would only normally be coded as a C3.

 

RCBOs are readily available for these boards at around £25-30 each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fleeting

As it stands though the Report is not suggesting additional rcd protection so at face value it is almost certainly technically incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boltonsparky

Unless they're being really pedantic as new labels are slightly different wording and dimensions. You have the labels they've said you don't.

 

As for being a C2 and a C3 for the same thing it's most likely poor form filling. Some software auto generates codes, likely a C3 then they've upped it to a C2 in their observations as that's what they feel/want the code to be. 

 

No RCD protection for the circuits you don't have RCD protection for is a C3 for me. Surprised they haven't tried the highly volatile plastic consumer unit that could spontaneously burst into flames at any moment observation on there. 

Edited by boltonsparky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarmfield

The whole report is below - it came with a cover letter that warns of Urgent issues and a cost of 985GBP +VAT to resolve, lots of warnings about fines etc. but nothing on the actual work required. Only when i pushed them on it did they come back with the very vague responses.

 

My last note to them was to ensure they spelled out what they were claiming so i can get a second opinion and lodge a complaint if necessary - the whole thing just smells of work generation unfortunately. Note and response is blow:

 

Hi ,

 

So should the report be amended as it does not tally, and I really want to understand the issue that requires attention. 

 

This report is saying that the current consumer unit, which has all of the circuits with sockets protected by RCD, but has no RCD protection on the lighting circuits and a cooker circuit that has no outlet is a potentially dangerous (C2) fault and the only way to rectify this is to fit a new consumer unit for 985GBP +VAT ?

 

Sorry for the back and forth but I really need to understand what the report is telling me, and the C3 in the details and C2 in the summary with C3 text has me confused!

 

Their response - short and sweet as usual:

 

Hi Toby

 

That is correct.

 

kind regards

 

Cover letter:

Cover_cropped.thumb.jpg.2332e935ce53040c2c2ed6a36670a310.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPECIAL LOCATION

3rd MCB from the main switch on the right looks like a 10A on the photo...

yet the schedule of results calls it a 6A??

 

As for the first comment stating you don't have a 6month RCD test label..  (that didn't exist when that board was fitted)...

BUT you DO have a 3month quarterly test label..  (the big silver one)..

 

And the third comment..  re the mixed colour label..  (which is the yellow one on your board next to the silver one)..

 

Suggests they are either, blind, can't read, or just plain incompetent... 

 

If they cant even figure out what labels should or shouldn't be there..

Or get the correct MCB ratings listed on the circuits descriptions then gawd help us..

 

 

I'm guessing this was done by someone who's come though the inspection & testing "Short-Course" training program..

with zero understanding of the real world.

 

You could go to Screwfix and buy some RCBO's to pop in that board on the Non-RCD side.. 

https://www.screwfix.com/p/wylex-6a-30ma-sp-type-b-rcbo/35586

https://www.screwfix.com/p/wylex-32a-30ma-sp-type-b-rcbo/39356

https://www.screwfix.com/p/wylex-10a-30ma-sp-type-b-rcbo/20050

 

even at Screwfix prices, and waz a bit of labour for replace & test them..

Its still one helluva lot cheaper than £900+

 

   

:C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fleeting

The Code 2 item from that Report is incorrect, fault protection is provided by the existing protective devices. You need to go back to them and state it is technically incorrect

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sharpend

I don’t even think the test schedule relates to your board. There are 5 circuits on the non RCD side of your board from picture but only 4 listed on schedule. 
 

Did you find whom they are registered with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.