EICR - Help on my Request for Electrical Safety Alternatives and Quotes

[Lucio de Godoy]

Good morning,

We have a two-bedroom flat that my wife and I rent out to supplement our income. Following the recent EICR, several issues categorised as C1, C2, and C3 were identified.

I've tries to discuss alternatives with the engineer, particularly concerning the replacement of the consumer unit (CU) due to its high cost. However, I'm not satisfied with the options provided. Could you please share your thoughts on achieving safety compliance without replacing the CU, and costing a small fortune?

On the loose box above the CU issue, it has a bit of play, minor, it is not hanging of the wall!

Quotes asked:

1. Engineer to provide a quote for removing the door contactor switch to address the C1 issue?
2. What would be the cost for securing the loose box above the CU?

Here are my specific questions:

1. Could the engineer quote for replacing the three B16 MCBs with B10s?
2. Is it possible for the engineer to group the two ring circuits and isolate the radial circuit, or group it with a B20 circuit? Please provide a quote for this work.
3. Will the proposed solutions from points 1 to 4 ensure compliance and enable the issuance of an EICR?

Ultimately, I'm looking to resolve these issues without needing to replace the CU. I appreciate your guidance on this matter.
Please see the PDF as it includes pictures.

Thank you for your assistance.

Lucio

 

[westward10]

Item 4 is questionable. If the radial only serves a single point it is fine but if multiple points it needs addressing.

 

[Lucio de Godoy]

Item 4 is questionable. If the radial only serves a single point it is fine but if multiple points it needs addressing.

Hi, Thank you for your reply, can it be combined into another circuit of same capacity/demand?

 

[westward10]

Hi, Thank you for your reply, can it be combined into another circuit of same capacity/demand?

Not something I would do. What does the radial feed?

 

[westward10]

They failed to note you have type AC RCDs which are now generally deemed unsuitable and the RCD test notice no longer complies.

 

[UNG]

That EICR lacks a lot of detail and bears little or no resemblance to the model forms in BS7671
Where are the Installation details, circuit test results and all the other information that a proper EICR details
Looks like the contractor is big on the gloss but lacks the substance

 

[DPG]

Is that an EICR or a sparky's photo album?

 

[westward10]

That is probably a snap shot of the Report.

 

[Lucio de Godoy]

Hi All;

Thank you for your comments, attached is the full report. I had taken a picture of the actual report for brevity.

Many thanks

Lucio

 

[LukeD]

Hi All;

Thank you for your comments, attached is the full report. I had taken a picture of the actual report for brevity.

Many thanks

Lucio

There are some valid issues . But the whole EICR "game" is open to so much abuse as they can almost do what they want and many do as they want to make money from the work required . It seems many people doing them have varied interpretations of the regs etc .

 

[MDJ]

No 2 although maybe accurate if cables clipped direct 16 amp would be ok, obviously 1.5 is better suited to 10 amp but you could not say for definate a 16 amp MCB is too big for a 1.5mm2 cable, lots of reasons why it may be compliant

 

[davesparks]

I would expect 1.5mm to be fine for those 16 circuits.

 

[Simon47]

Item 4 is questionable. If the radial only serves a single point it is fine but if multiple points it needs addressing.

It isn't questionable at all, it's just wrong - what reg prohibits a radial and ring sharing an MCB ?
More likely the combination of radial cable size and MCB rating isn't acceptable - e.g. multiple sockets, 2.5mm T&E, B32 MCB. if the MCB were 20A or 25A then it would be fine. If it were 4mm cable it would be fine.

 

[westward10]

It isn't questionable at all, it's just wrong - what reg prohibits a radial and ring sharing an MCB ?
More likely the combination of radial cable size and MCB rating isn't acceptable - e.g. multiple sockets, 2.5mm T&E, B32 MCB. if the MCB were 20A or 25A then it would be fine. If it were 4mm cable it would be fine.

As I said it is questionable and my query was perfectly correct. For you to suggest a 2.5 on a 25A protective device is fine without knowing the installation method is, well, questionable. Not sure how the 32A protective device being type B is relevant.

 

[davesparks]

It isn't questionable at all, it's just wrong - what reg prohibits a radial and ring sharing an MCB ?
More likely the combination of radial cable size and MCB rating isn't acceptable - e.g. multiple sockets, 2.5mm T&E, B32 MCB. if the MCB were 20A or 25A then it would be fine. If it were 4mm cable it would be fine.

But if that extra cable only feeds one point then it is not a radial circuit but is a completely compliant spur from the ring.
So yes, it is questionable.

 

[mainline]

But if that extra cable only feeds one point then it is not a radial circuit but is a completely compliant spur from the ring.
So yes, it is questionable.

A radial circuit in its own right emanates from a consumer unit or power source, where as a spur is a branch off of an existing circuit

 

[DPG]

A radial circuit in its own right emanates from a consumer unit or power source, where as a spur is a branch off of an existing circuit

But a spur on a ring can be taken from any point on the ring, including at the MCB.

 

[mainline]

But a spur on a ring can be taken from any point on the ring, including at the MCB.

Then in my opinion it's not a spur.
If it was taken from a point on the ring then it would be a spur.

Would disconnecting the ring from the mcb then make it a radial ?

 

[DPG]

Then in my opinion it's not a spur.
If it was taken from a point on the ring then it would be a spur.

Would disconnecting the ring from the mcb then make it a radial ?

It is just a part of the ring though - a spur as per the regs.

Yes if you removed the whole ring then it would become a radial with one point.

 

[mainline]

It is just a part of the ring though - a spur as per the regs.

Yes if you removed the whole ring then it would become a radial with one point.

It's not part of the ring it has its own source.