line-neutral insulation resistance test

[JohnW2]

You are right, the certificate was for 'Change consumer unit and test', ie a brand new consumer unit. But the circuits pre-date the new consumer unit by many years, yet they are covered by a 10 year certificate for replacement of the consumer unit.

What you are describing does not sound like an EICR (probably called PIR {Periodic Inspection Report} back then) but, rather, an EIC (Electrical Installation Certificate) just for the consumer unit change.

As I've recently written, I don't really understand why that (or any other) certificate should influence an insurer's policy as to whether or not they are prepared to insure a property which (currently) has PVC wiring in a thatched roof.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mwatsonxx]

Thanks for all your comments, guys.
I've just learned from the insurer, who also insured the property through the previous (deceased) owner, that the test results are satisfactory for insurance purposes, though she wouldn't tell me any more due to data protection. There may have been remedial work that I am not aware of atm.
Worryingly, she says that the test certificate is valid for 10 y, ie until 2022, even though it may not be compliant to modern standards. So, the pvc wiring in the roof space would not be acceptable if the test were carried out today, but they have to accept it. Meaning that I may be liable for improvements in 2022. But it is hard to make the case that the seller should pay for improvements now.

I find this all very strange, thatched houses are an obvious serious fire risk and therefore have to be wired to the highest possible standards. Provision of earthing in lighting circuits has been a requirement since the 60's, nigh on 60 years ago. CIBSE give a lifetime of 20 years for electrical installations, therefore your installation should have been replaced over 40 years ago. Ask your insurer to confirm in writing that they are happy with the installation - don't hold your breath!

Your new lighting circuits will have to be of the highest quality (lowest fire risk), that means steel conduit or micc installed by competant electricians. And the cost will be at least treble the price of standard pvc wiring. There may also be a requirement for early smoke detection (VESDA), again megabucks and also a sprinkler system.

 

[Iggifer]

As I've recently written, I don't really understand why that (or any other) certificate should influence an insurer's policy as to whether or not they are prepared to insure a property which (currently) has PVC wiring in a thatched roof

I'm somewhat confused by this and your previous post re: insurers not being happy with PVC cables in a thatched roof. The OP has never said they're not happy, rather that the current (or rather former) insurers were perfectly happy with the current installation.

Bernard is the only one who has said anything relating to them not insuring you.

Another reason to get another EICR and take it to a different insurance company. If they won't insure you on the back of that report, go back to the seller and explain you can't get insured because of x, y and z and this is why your offer is £x less than the asking price/initial offer (I don't know at what stage negotiations are)

 

[Risteard]

Wholly abnormal? If that were the case, why would there be a column for recording the result of such a test in the standard Schedule of Test Results form?

Kind Regards, John

Because it is a generic schedule for all types of work, including new installation work.

That doesn't mean that every box needs to have numbers in it - that's why the extent and limitations are important to state what was done, and also importantly what was not done.

If I came across a PIR/EICR with insulation values listed between live conductors I would automatically lose trust in the veracity of the report. It's simply not feasible to disconnect all loads to do the test - and indeed such unnecessary dismantling is as likely to introduce faults as to detect them.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm somewhat confused by this and your previous post re: insurers not being happy with PVC cables in a thatched roof. The OP has never said they're not happy, rather that the current (or rather former) insurers were perfectly happy with the current installation.

So, the pvc wiring in the roof space would not be acceptable if the test were carried out today, but they have to accept it....

How did you interpret that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If I came across a PIR/EICR with insulation values listed between live conductors I would automatically lose trust in the veracity of the report. It's simply not feasible to disconnect all loads to do the test - and indeed such unnecessary dismantling is as likely to introduce faults as to detect them.

I agree that it could be difficult but, rather than "losing trust in the veracity of the report", would you not consider the possibility that, on the contrary, whoever undertook the EICR was sufficiently conscientious that the felt that they should do whatever was necessary to undertake some IR testing on a circuit with no CPC?

Don't forget, we are talking specifically about the situation in which a circuit is wired in cables without a CPC, in which an L-N IR test is the only one which could be done. If there is a CPC, then I agree that an L-N IR test is not really necessary (and, given the practical difficulties, would rarely, if ever, be done).

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

There are columns for end to end ring resistance too, etc.

Are you saying you wouldn't do E2E on a ring final, either?

It is wholly abnormal to insulation test between live conductors during Periodic Inspection and Testing.

No it isn't!

 

[John D v2.0]

Are you saying you wouldn't do E2E on a ring final, either?

I'm not saying that but my point is just because there's a box doesn't mean it is part of the necessary tests.
Clearly that box exists for radial circuits too but would be empty

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not saying that but my point is just because there's a box doesn't mean it is part of the necessary tests. Clearly that box exists for radial circuits too but would be empty

In context, the implication of what Risteard says is that he believes that the column only exists because the form is also used for 'new installations'.

However, even with a new installation, if the whole circuit (not just the cables) has been newly installed, then there are going to be exactly the same practical difficulties which he says are a reason for not doing an L-N IR test during an EICR, aren't there? If he believes that, I can't see why he thinks the column exists at all.

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

but the lighting circuits have no earth wire. Again, should I be concerned about that ?

Yes - the circuits are more than half a century old, and should have been replaced long ago.

But the circuits pre-date the new consumer unit by many years, yet they are covered by a 10 year certificate for replacement of the consumer unit.

Certificates do not cover anything for any length of time. It's just a record of their condition on a particular date.
It does NOT mean they will be safe for 10 years or even 10 days.
It may be recommended to test/inspect again in 10 years, but that is very different from them being all safe for the next 10.

The certificate and what is contained on it is largely irrelevant, as are the opinions of the insurance company. They just want a piece of paper so when it all goes wrong, they can blame someone else and therefore claim whatever losses were incurred from them.

You know the lighting wiring is life expired and needs to be replaced immediately.
Other wiring may well be the same age and if so, that also needs to be replaced.

 

[EFLImpudence]

However, even with a new installation, if the whole circuit (not just the cables) has been newly installed, then there are going to be exactly the same practical difficulties

It can be tested before the connection of any accessories or appliances.

 

[JohnW2]

You know the lighting wiring is life expired and needs to be replaced immediately. Other wiring may well be the same age and if so, that also needs to be replaced.

The OP probably knows that, but I suspect that what he would like to have is some 'expert' statement to that effect, which he could then use in his price negotiations with the seller.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It can be tested before the connection of any accessories or appliances.

Indeed. That's why I wrote "... if the whole circuit (not just the cables) has been newly installed ... "However, if just the cable has been installed at the time of the test, and the remaining bits of "the circuit" added after the test, I don't know how reasonable (or correct/accurate) it is to record the result as a result of a test "of the circuit".

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

As I've recently written, I don't really understand why that (or any other) certificate should influence an insurer's policy as to whether or not they are prepared to insure a property which (currently) has PVC wiring in a thatched roof.

Different companies have different requirements, often the small print includes requirements which, if not met, will invalidate the insurance cover and then in the event of a fire a claim on the insurance will be declined.

Some companies require a higher standard than BS7671 to which most electrical inspections adhere to. For example the use of copper sheathed mineral insulated cabling in the roof space. The person carrying out the electrical inspection must be aware of the special requirements of the insurance company specific to the property.

 

[JohnW2]

Different companies have different requirements, often the small print includes requirements which, if not met, will invalidate the insurance cover and then in the event of a fire a claim on the insurance will be declined.

I'm sure that's true.

I was merely commenting on what I understood (maybe incorrectly) of what the OP has said, namely ( thought he was saying) that the insurer told him that PVC cable in the roof would not be acceptable if an EICR were undertaken today, but that they "had to accept it" given that they regarded the EICR undertaken in 2012 as being 'valid for 10 years'.

If that is really what the OP was told, none of it makes much sense to me.

Kind Regards, John