EICR advice and costs... help.

[ray78]

After a bit of advice please!
I should have got on to the new EICR requirements sooner - no excuses although COVID, travel lockdowns etc haven't helped matters.

Anyway, I wasn't expecting my report to be quite as bad as it looks: Grateful for any advice on below - looks pretty terrible to me at first glance. Any rough idea on costs involved? I'm trying to get quotes but seem to vary wildly - can't get a sense of consistency. The report isn't that helpful to the layman - am I over a barrel here? Any help much appreciated!

Old Rewire-able fuse box with no additional protection via 30mA rcd - C2

4.19 RCD(s) provided for additional protection/requirements - includes RCBOs (411.3.3; 415.1) is in a potentially dangerous condition. Urgent remedial action is required - C2

5.12.1 For all socket-outlets of rating 32A or less, unless an exception is permitted (411.3.3) is in a potentially dangerous condition. Urgent remedial action is required - C2

5.12.2 For the supply of mobile equipment not exceeding 32A rating for use outdoors (411.3.3) is in a potentially dangerous condition. Urgent remedial action is required - C2

5.12.4 For cables concealed in walls/partitions containing metal parts regardless of depth (522.6.203) is recommended for improvement - C3

5.12.5 Final circuits supplying luminaires within domestic (household) premises (411.3.4) is in a potentially dangerous condition. Urgent remedial action is required - C2

6.1 Additional protection for all low voltage (LV) circuits by RCD not exceeding 30mA (701.411.3.3) is in a potentially dangerous condition. Urgent remedial action is required - C2

4.5 Enclosure not damaged/deteriorated so as to impair safety (651.2) is in a dangerous condition and presents risk of injury. Immediate remedial action is required -C3

 

[AndyPRK]

Most of it is because you don’t have an RCD

Just fit a new fusebox with rcbo

 

[JohnW2]

Anyway, I wasn't expecting my report to be quite as bad as it looks: Grateful for any advice on below - looks pretty terrible to me at first glance.

It's not really as bad as it looks. All but the last of those defects (which is a 'C3', anyway, and therefore does not constitute a 'fail') appear to relate to the absence of RCD protection in your installation. The simplest way of addressing that would probably have a new up-to-date Consumer Unit fitted. It's actually a little surprising that there are not the 'usual' pile of pretty trivial issues in the list!

Kind Regards, John

 

[AndyPRK]

C2 have to be fixed though ?

 

[ray78]

Thanks Andy / John.
That's very helpful. If the report said 'get a new fusebox' that would be fine - I'd understand. It's not an easy read for a novice.

 

[JohnW2]

C2 have to be fixed though ?

Sure - but, as has been said, all the C2s appear to relate to the same thing (absent RCD protection) which would be solved by getting a new CU. The only C3 (which does not 'have to be' fixed is the l;ast item on the list.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It is not actually stated; this is a rental property, is it?




How can a lack of RCDs make something "potentially dangerous"?

 

[ray78]

Yes it is a rented property

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ok.

Then, you will be virtually forced to renew the consumer unit by the new legislation.

 

[ray78]

Appreciate your advice folks - thank you. Do you think this quote (for London) is fair? Again, seems to be confusion whether you need a new EICR or if you just need to fix what's on it (as in C1s and C2s).

A new 18th edition consumer unit will be supplied and fitted complete with RCBOs and SPD. We carry out this work for £650. We issue a EIC and a new EICR upon completion

 

[ericmark]

In 2008 the rules for bathrooms changed, it was realised that plastic pipes are used, and so the requirement for bonding was relaxed, on condition that RCD protection is present. So one or the other.

The regulations are not retrospective, so if it passed in 1992 and nothing has degraded or been changed, it will also pass today, there will be likely a load of Code C3 raised to make you aware should you want to add anything it will need upgrading, but should be no Code C2 raised.

However as an inspector he is unlikely to down load the fitting instructions for every shower, boiler or cooking appliance and many now say RCD protection should be used, so fit a new shower, change the boiler, find a new hob, and in real terms the installation is not any more as it was in 1992, and I am sure in any house if you do read all the manufacturers instructions one will say RCD protection is required. So in real terms you want it fitting.

So over the years the humble fuse box gave way to the consumer unit and one can often select fuse holder, MCB, or RCBO in each slot, but some are now obsolete or the parts are very expensive, so it will depend on make and model of what is already fitted, and also with RCD protection circuits which have seemed A1 for years start to show problems, a oven for example may have a faulty seal on an element which still works A1 with no RCD protection but once the RCD is fitted can push it over the limit.

I personally went for all RCBO as then if one does trip, I have time to fix what ever is wrong, with one RCD feeding many MCB's when there is a fault it often needs fixing now, so it is call out fees for who ever needs to fix it, so in my case a water leak on the verandah which tripped the sockets in garage below could wait a week to be fixed. But the parts for all RCBO cost around £250 where if I had used two RCD's would have cost £80, and I considered one freezer full of food will cost more than the difference.

Cost to fit a RCBO is likely around £50 per circuit, depending on make, fuse box could be £15 and Wylex could be £35 and clearly more fitted at same time the lower the labour cost, so if it can all be cured by fitting two RCBO's then maybe £100, once you look at a consumer unit change then £500 to £1000 depending on size and type. Again one make a SPD cost £35 and another make £100 so the cost can vary a lot.

 

[JohnW2]

Appreciate your advice folks - thank you. Do you think this quote (for London) is fair? Again, seems to be confusion whether you need a new EICR or if you just need to fix what's on it (as in C1s and C2s).

The private rental legislation does not appear to require a new EICR, but merely confirmation that all C1s/C2s have been remedied - but your guy seems to be offering a new EICR (I presume as part of the quoted price), which is obviously 'tidier'!

I'm no authority, but the quoted price sounds fairly reasonable to me, maybe a bit low for London. Others here will have a far better idea than I do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

The regulations are not retrospective, so if it passed in 1992 and nothing has degraded or been changed, it will also pass today, there will be likely a load of Code C3 raised to make you aware should you want to add anything it will need upgrading, but should be no Code C2 raised.

The regulations are not retrospective, but that’s a very misleading statement in the context of EICRs. An EICR is carried out using the current version of BS7671 as a reference. It doesn’t matter when the installation was installed or last inspected. I would very much except a 1992 installation to receive multiple C2s and an unsatisfactory report.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do you think that the vast majority of installations are now "potentially dangerous" because they don't have surge protectors?

One example of what you say might be now inadequate bonding - but this is because the DNOs have been negligent in maintaining TN-S supplies and converting them to TN-C-S.

 

[JohnW2]

The regulations are not retrospective, but that’s a very misleading statement in the context of EICRs. An EICR is carried out using the current version of BS7671 as a reference. It doesn’t matter when the installation was installed or last inspected. I would very much except a 1992 installation to receive multiple C2s and an unsatisfactory report.

For what it's worth, I agree, but eric keeps saying this.

I think he accepts that EICRs are carried out with reference to the current version of BS7671, but he says (correctly) that being non-conformant with a regulation in the current version of BS7671 is not, per se, a reason for a C2 - since it is only a C2 if it is the inspector's judgement that the non-conformity is sufficiently 'potentially dangerous' as to require 'urgent remedial action'. Up to that point, I can't disagree with him.

However, his argument then seems to be on the basis that "if it were not potentially dangerous in 1992, then it is not potentially dangerous today", attempting to support that with the statement which appears at the start of every version of BS7671 that things non-conformant with current regulations which were conformant with the relevant regulations at the time of installation "...are not necessarily unsafe for continued use or require upgrading".

It is obviously true that nothing can be 'more potentially dangerous' today than it was in 1992. However, what eric does not seem to accept is that (rightly or wrongly, in individual cases) 'our' views about what levels of 'potential danger' are acceptable evolve over time. Hence there are undoubtedly situations in which something considered to be 'acceptably safe' in 1992 would not be considered as 'acceptably safe' today.

Whilst I certainly cannot agree with eric's apparent view that nothing which was conformant with the prevailing BS7671 in 1992 should be given a C2 today, I would hope that the rest of us would also agree that it would be equally inappropriate to automatically give C2s to all such findings - so, even though it obviously results in discussions, disagreements and inconsistencies, whether something gets a C2 or C3 is (in the absence of specific and detailed rules or guidance) going to have to remain a matter of individual judgement.

Kind Regards, John