EICR double check

I would go back to whoever wrote the report and get them to clarify what they mean. Far too many in our trade seem to think vague drivel is acceptable on an EICR…

 

Ask the person who wrote the report, it could be a 40/60/63 amp upfront RCD protected by a 80 or 100 amp fuse.

 

Picture of the Consumer Unit showing the "RCDs" would be useful too.

 

A picture will paint 1000 words, I'll guess at an under rated up front or auxillary RCD

 

-After Board Change there is 50% chance that the new consumer unit
might trip, if that is the case it might be due to the fault in existing wiring
and Further investigation has to be carried out on the property.

Really, is this a gas fitter doing the job or an electrician!!!

can you upload a scan of the report, obviously redact the name/address

 

Is there anyone close-by that can get a picture?

40 yo - but is teh CU that old? and having RCDs mentions suggests work has been done since.

Can you remember the layout - is it an up front RCD, in the CU or separate RCBOs on each circuit?

 

of course the above is absolute rubbish, not least before energising the board all circuits will be tested but more importantly there is a 100% chance the board might trip, because at any point in time it is a certainty that any board might trip. Or did he mean there is a 50% chance the board will trip. over what period was he considering the probability of tripping: minute, hour, day, month or year. the chap clearly doesn't even understand what he has written...

 

That EICR is completely lacking in detail, I would want to see some photos to determine what is what.

It says all the circuits are protected by a 30 mA and the the RCD rating is inadequate, I presume it must be a 60 amp upfront RCD protected by a 80 amp fuse.

You definitely should request more information and be told exactly what the problem is.

 

I looked at the EICR again, it says there’s a 100 amp fuse and the main switch is a 80 amp BS5419 device which is an isolator not a RCD, but rated as a 30 mA RCD also the MCBs add up to 120 amps so don’t limit the current on the main switch/RCD.

Without looking at it I would not want to comment on what the exact issue is, because there’s discrepancies in that description, it could just be the wrong BRitish Standard number or there’s a main switch and an upfront RCD with the description not making it clear what is being taken to be the main switch and mixed information entered on the report.

 

Or you may argue that as that such a basic matter is wrong the whole report is flawed and needs to be repeated. Certainly the work product : the certificate is faulty…

 

I try to go through life only dealing with issues that only really need dealing with, otherwise you can run yourself ragged.

The report says there’s no sign of any alterations, but then it says there’s not a mixed colours label on the consumer unit, you cannot really have it both ways. If there’s not been any alterations it will presumably have cables with all the same insulation colours.

Again, it’s not a big issue in it self, but actually putting a label on whilst doing the inspection and testing is not a big issue rather than writing down an observation.

I wonder if it has a RCD testing label?

 

I have wondered when some one will pick up on an EICR for wrong type of RCD? As far as I am concerned a RCD is an extra with TN supply, only with a TT supply is it the primary protection device, but I note for example Bosch boilers stipulate type A, and solar panels and electric car charging type B.

But rating could refer to type, leakage current, over current, prospective short circuit current, and I have seen arguments before as to when 60 amp RCD used with 100 amp DNO fuse and MCB's totalling over 60 amp. If one looks at an immersion heater rated 3 kW it will normally use a 16A MCB but would only draw 16 amp under fault conditions, so in real terms 13 amp.

And BS7671 is not retrospective, so if the design was dated 1992 then still using BS7671:1992 remember design date not date completed.

It is however very hard to keep to an old design, and unless the inspector has the paperwork showing when designed and when the design has been updated he has no option but consider it was designed yesterday.

So at work I can look at all the plans for every building and see when designed and any updates, but this is rare with a home. So your really in a position where it is very hard to point at errors.

But @jonathanc makes a good point, any error which is clear means the whole report is flawed, and yes needs to be repeated.

But C2 = potentially dangerous and not any regulation breached, and 230 volt is potentially dangerous so can't really say it's wrong, it is the whim of the tester, and however much I think it is wrong, it does not matter.

 

Again for earthing arrangement it says “TNS Lim”.

Again you cannot have a limitation on the earthing type, but apparently it’s also a very good earth connection giving really good test results.

Now, if it’s TNS what size main earth conductor does it need?

 

Again for earthing arrangement it says “TNS Lim”.

Again you cannot have a limitation on the earthing type, but apparently it’s also a very good earth connection giving really good test results.

Now, if it’s TNS and not TNCS, what size main earth conductor does it need, is there anything wrong with the 10 mm main earth conductor?

 

He has put lim on lighting and water heater for continuity and Zs tests so he hasn't tested them but gets perfect insulation results which is odd