Eicr advice

Discussion in 'Electricians' Talk' started by J00king, Apr 18, 2021.

  1. J00king

    J00king New Member

    Both mine and my brothers home would need EICR’s done.

    looking at the pictures of the consumer units do any of you see any issues here with it being passed? I don’t want to be overcharged for any remedial work that may need doing.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jonathanc

    jonathanc Screwfix Select

    No idea an EICR is much more than a quick eyeball at the CU. If you need them because they are rented out you are too late!
     
  3. Pete Jones

    Pete Jones Active Member

    Yes cables need dressing and tidying up.
     
  4. Hoops-senior

    Hoops-senior Member

    FWIW, I'm not a fan of snap-in blanks. Too easy to snap-out with a finger nail.
     
  5. Second photo definate fail. Entry of cables at top of consumer unit is not ip4x. By the looks of the first photo I'd doubt if that was up to ip4x. But as Jonathanc said its much more than a visual check of the consumer units.
    However the fact that the consumer units are plastic and some circuits do not have rcd protection (not meeting current regs) doesn't necessarily mean they need replacing. It could just be a c3 code ie recommended improvements
     
  6. MGW

    MGW Screwfix Select

    Whole idea of an EICR is to tell you the condition of the installation, clue is in the name, other than with rental property in England there is not a pass or fail, there are 6 codes used to help the client decide what needs doing and what has been tested.
    C1 = Danger present
    C2 = Potentially dangerous
    C3 = Improvement recommended
    FI = Further investigation required
    LIM = Limitation (not tested or inspected)
    Also N/V = not verified and N/A = Not applicable.
    At one time there was also a code 4 = does not comply with current regulations if designed today, but this was dropped as being unhelpful and confusing.

    Normally the inspector will use the regulations BS 7671 as a guide and state what regulation is breached, but whole idea is to say how safe the installation is, not does it comply with current regulations if designed today, which is why code 4 was dropped, so clearly if an installation was safe in 1964 and nothing had changed or degraded it is still safe today.

    However things have changed since 1964 what is bonded, (earthed) and the equipment used, and clearly no inspector knows every manufacturers methods, so if the manufacturer says for example a type A 30 mA RCD complying with BS 7671 415.1.1 must be used, then the inspector should recommend a type A 30 mA RCD should be fitted.

    I would not think many homes would have an EICR done without there being some faults, I know my own home has type AC RCD's supplying inverter drive appliances and it should have type A for those, but the risk is very low. Clearly when my house was built we did not have inverter drive domestic appliances, as it if an inspector would bother pointing this out, not so sure.

    What is a problem is if some one has wired something and issued a minor work or installation certificate and then some one does an EICR and shows a fault, should you be able to demand that the first person corrects their work? There are cases where this does happen, the LABC can use the EICR to check some one has done the work to standard, and in that case the inspector would be instructed to inspect and test as if a new installation, so in that case any non compliance with BS 7671 current at time would be noted, the LABC as the client has told the inspector that is what they want. An electrical installation certificate can only be issued by the person doing the work, but the EICR is very similar to the EIC, so the LABC use the forms for the EICR to get a report and decide if they should issue a completion certificate.

    I point this out as the inspector does as instructed, and if the client says do not go into my radio shack then the inspector simply enters radio shack as LIM. However if a terraced house and only loft entry point is with end terrace, and the house he is inspecting is not end terrace he could well use FI code. but unless a rented property it really does not matter, LIM or FI differ as LIM set by client and FI set by inspector.

    In theory any code C1 should be made safe before the inspector leaves, be it actually repair the circuit or isolate the circuit does not matter, in practice if the home is unoccupied at time of inspection he may just note the C1 code. But clearly once the inspector finds a C1 then health and safety rules kick in, and he can't allow the circuit to stay energised, and if the loss of the circuit results in the home being considered as uninhabitable, he should find alternative accommodation, although the rules don't say who should pay for it, so rather pointless.

    We were all told the electrician can over rule the managing director with a health and safety matter, as if that will every happen. However if the electrician or inspector leaves the premises in a dangerous condition he is libel, but if he for example fits a MCB lock on the MCB locking it off with a tie wrap, then because a tool is required to remove the tie wrap and lock, even when he knows as soon as he leaves the tie wrap will be cut off, he has done his duty. But simply switching off, he would still end up in court is some one is injured or killed.
     
  7. Comlec

    Comlec Screwfix Select

    In England rental property does not "pass or fail" the report still uses the same terminology of 'satisfactory or unsatisfactory'
    LIM, N/A and N/V are additional codes added by various bodies to their own forms

    The IET publish APPENDIX 6 (Informative) MODEL FORMS FOR CERTIFICATION AND REPORTING

    upload_2021-4-19_13-0-18.png
    All EICRs are carried out with reference to the regulations in force at the time of the inspection. However, non-compliance with the regulations does not necessarily result in an unsatisfactory report.
    There is also a duty on the inspector to inform to the person requesting the EICR or the duty-holder. The is often done by the issue a danger notice immediately. It is this document that provides the paper trail as is shows the action taken by the inspector.
     
  8. J00king

    J00king New Member

    Thanks for the informative guidance guys.
    You’ve all been a great help in me understanding the procedures.
     
  9. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Screwfix Select

  10. MGW

    MGW Screwfix Select

    We are getting into use of English rather than electrics. The regulations in force at the time of the inspection state the design date after which they come into force, so the regulations themselves direct one to earlier versions. So if designed in 1992 then the 2018 regulations point one to the 1992 edition, it does seem some times we need a degree in English to work out what is required.

    I have used computer search in the past to see what is required, for example "a disconnection time not exceeding 1 s is permitted" but what I have failed to realise is that this only refers to a TT system. So we read BS 7671 and as we come to for example "Installations designed after 30st June 2008" at that point we can stop reading if designed before that date.

    I would agree it is unsatisfactory, as the inspector can't be expected to have every version of the wiring regulations, I felt the code 4 was good, and feel it should never have been removed, however I do not say how an EICR should be done, in the main the C&G 2391 and the books the exam is based on does that. And although we have to take new exams as each BS 7671 edition comes out, the C&G 2391 does not need retaking, so even if taken in 2002 it is still valid, when the codes changed from 1, 2, 3, and 4 to C1, C2 and C3 we did not need to retake the exam.

    But the C&G exams have been it seems a test on reading, were if you missed some thing like "and others" you lost marks, OK that has been dropped now with don't have a competent person, only skilled, but I am sure you can see my point, more about use of English than use of electrical principals. I have often asks since not published in Welsh is BS7671 valid in Wales?
     
  11. Comlec

    Comlec Screwfix Select

    Whilst your input of how things were and how you would like them to be makes interesting reading, we have to work with how things actually are. If you read section D of the IET form from the current regulation, it is unambiguous in its reference to BS7671:2018.

    upload_2021-4-20_9-1-57.png

    There is no requirement for an inspector to have any knowledge of previous versions of the wiring regulations going back to 1882, or know when they where published and applied.

    The exception to this is when an inspection is commissioned specifically requesting a previous version is used. An example of such a request would come from a LABC during the regularisation process for work carried out in the past. If a householder required certification for work carried out in 2011 then the report would refer to BS7671:2008 Amendment No 1, 2011. (Green Cover).
     
  12. MGW

    MGW Screwfix Select

    Your missing the point, if BS7671:2018 says it is only to be followed for designs after a date, the if the design date is before then it is to BS7671:2018 as it says what date.

    Where the problem lies is if you don't have the design date, so unless the EIC is produced then one must assume new, other wise use design date on the EIC.
     
  13. Comlec

    Comlec Screwfix Select

    I am not missing the point! EICRs are carried out with reference to the wiring regulations currently in force. To do otherwise would require an inspector to have copies of ALL versions of the wiring regulations and know the dates of ALL installation and alteration work carried out in an installation. Maybe you could check this with your trade body and get back to us.
    This is just wrong. I have given a clear example when an inspection can be retrospective.
    Can't you see the absurdity of your argument.
    So let's say I am called to carry out an EICR on a property and on arrival the owner presents proof that the installation was completed in Oct 1967 and no alterations have been done. I should now go to the van and get out my copy of the 14th Edition of the regulations and begin the inspection. I don't think so.

    I occasionally inspect properties that have full recent installation records, all that means is that you can put precise dates in some of the boxes rather than estimates.
     
  14. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Screwfix Select

    @MGW from the Best practice guide linked to above:

    It should be borne in mind that, as stated in the introduction to BS 7671, existing installations that have been constructed in accordance with earlier editions of the Standard may not comply with the current edition in every respect, but this does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading.

    As its title indicates, this is a report and not a certificate. It provides an assessment of the current in-service condition of an electrical installation against the requirements of the edition of BS 7671 current at the time of the inspection, irrespective of the age of the installation.


    Pagrs 3 and 4.
     
  15. MGW

    MGW Screwfix Select

    I can see the argument, and I would agree an inspector can't carry all editions of BS 7671, and clearly code C3 can be awarded to any item which does not comply with current edition assuming a new installation.

    However in the main the problem is about code C2 not code C3, and code C2 is potentially dangerous. And if it is potentially dangerous now, it was also potentially dangerous in 1900. If in 1900 we had the same equipment.

    Clearly in 1900 we did not have same equipment, so items like solar panels and electric cars can result in what was OK in 1900 not being OK now.

    Also in 1900 we would allow or not allow things which today we see in a different light, so that is maybe over egging the argument, but BS 7671 started in 1992, so it seems reasonable to take that as the start date, OK that means lighting without an earth looking at 1966 is going to be a fail, and we have allowed that to continue some 50 years, but in the main installations without lighting earth have other faults.

    My parents house built 1954 had no earth to lights, but the rubber cable meant it did need a rewire, even it one allows no earth to lights, so 1992 seems a good compromise. But we are looking at potentially dangerous, not does not comply with 18th edition to get a code C2.
     
  16. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Screwfix Select

    @MGW with all respect, I think you should have a read of the guide.
     
  17. Bazza-spark

    Bazza-spark Screwfix Select

    I think you should be shot, but there we are.
     
    longboat and pppmacca43 like this.
  18. spinlondon

    spinlondon Screwfix Select

    Why shouldn’t an Inspector have knowledge of earlier editions of BS7671?
    Especially now, that there is a Statutory requirement for some installations to be inspected and have a report produced.

    Of course the biggest problem, is not the lack of knowledge of earlier editions, but lack of understanding of the current edition.
    This idea that an installation is unsatisfactory, simply because some part of it does not comply with the current edition, is not only ridiculous but goes against what is contained within the current edition.

    We are all aware (or should be) of the introduction in every edition or amendment of BS7671.
    We should also be aware that there is always a 6 month period after the introduction of an edition or amendment, where we are allowed to design to either the existing edition or the new edition or amendment.
    In a couple of cases, some of the requirements of the new edition or amendment have not come into force, until a year or so after the edition or amendment was introduced. (ie. Harmonised colours and Metal CUs.)

    To suggest that something the Regulations allow to continue after their introduction, is unsafe or a potential danger, is to my mind ridiculous.

    The 3rd amendment of the 17th edition was introduced in 2015 and among other things, required Consumer units to comply with BS EN 61439-3 and be constructed from non-combustible material.
    This was published January 1st 2015, came into force July 1st 2015, but the requirement regarding CUs was originally intended to come into force January 1st 2016. (I seem to recall the implementation date being put back another 6 months, because manufacturers and wholesalers had old stock to shift?)

    Are people serious when they apply a code C2 for non-compliance with a requirement which didn’t even come into force a year or more after it was introduced?

    Then we have the fact, that the Regulations allow installations which were designed to earlier editions/amendments to be constructed after the introduction and the implementation of new requirements.
    For instance, the Athletes village in Stratford London.
    The designs for the village were made prior to the announcement in 2008 that London would host the 2012 Olympics.
    The designs included the accommodation being converted to apartments after the games concluded.
    The conversion was completed in April 2015, some 7 years after the introduction of the 17th edition.
    However, the standard used was the 16th edition.
     
    MGW likes this.
  19. The Happy Builder

    The Happy Builder Screwfix Select


    They might not have been born when the original installation was installed, never mind working as an electrician and may have only ever worked to the most recent editions.

    The report is based on a comparison with the CURRENT edition of the Wiring Regulations, not the edition that was current at the time of the existing installation.

    So every non-compliance with the current edition is a non-compliance that needs to be coded, the level of coding may be open to some discussion, but to carry out an inspection the tester only needs one edition of the Wiring Regulations, the latest edition.

    Just because an electrical installation was installed in 1964 and hasn’t been altered does not mean that it is perfectly acceptable in 2021.
     
  20. The Happy Builder

    The Happy Builder Screwfix Select

    As a minimum, improvement is recommended.
     

Share This Page