EICR Electrical report

TheProfessional

Hi all,

I had an EICR recently. We have not too long moved in to a 1920s house and wish to do some decorating which may include some skimming of walls.


I would say 3 of the 4 bedrooms need an extra socket or two.
Downstairs is probably alright.
The kitchen was done a couple of years ago so has new wiring but the rest of the house he said probably 25 years old as it was red wiring.

He said the reading were all good but may change a little once more sockets will be added but will probably still be fine.
Would anyone rewire in this case so to future proof before decorating or leave it to see how long it lasts?

Does it make more sense to rewire if we are adding lots of sockets at the same time?

Happy to hear thoughts 

grumbler

TheProfessional said:

Does it make more sense to rewire if we are adding lots of sockets at the same time?

Not to me.

tacpot12

Adding 1 socket per bedroom upstairs might need the upstairs socket circuit to be rewired, as strictly you can only have one extra socket spurred off the main circuit. Depending on whether any sockets have been added to the circuit already, and how strict your electrician is on interpreting the regulations, the electrician might insist on rewiring the upstairs socket circuit only. 

Clearly doing so buys you a degree of future-proofing because if you want add more sockets in the future, you are more likely to be able to add these sockets as single spurs off the rewired circuit, but I would say that you shouldn't think too much about future-proofing now; just get all the sockets you could possible want added, and if this needs the upstairs sockets rewiring, so be it. 

I can't see any need to rewire the other circuits if the (IR) readings are ok. PVC cables have a lifespan of 50+ years.  

fenwick458

tacpot12 said:

Adding 1 socket per bedroom upstairs might need the upstairs socket circuit to be rewired, as strictly you can only have one extra socket spurred off the main circuit. Depending on whether any sockets have been added to the circuit already, and how strict your electrician is on interpreting the regulations, the electrician might insist on rewiring the upstairs socket circuit only. 
  

You know it is possible to break into the ring, and add say 5 extra sockets properly, without completely rewiring the whole circuit?
OP, i'd say it's fine. 25 years is not old.

grumbler

tacpot12 said:

Adding 1 socket per bedroom upstairs might need the upstairs socket circuit to be rewired, as strictly you can only have one extra socket spurred off the main circuit.

Is it not one extra socket spurred of each existing socket in the ring?

Risteard

That's a pretty incompetent report. Also it's a 17th Edition report. Since 1/1/19 it has been required to be an 18th Edition report. BS7671:2018 and not BS7671:2008 as presented. Complain to Crapit. 

GDB2222

My father bought a new build house in 1972. We still have it in the family, and the original wiring is absolutely fine. Not to current standards, of course, but the cables themselves are showing no signs of damage. 

GDB2222

In contrast, we have been in our house since 1998, when it was completely rewired. I recently replaced some fluorescent lights, and I found that some of the cables had become completely cooked by the heat from those lights. So, it’s not just the age of the wiring that matters but also what it has been subjected to.

Homer_home

grumbler said:

tacpot12 said:

Adding 1 socket per bedroom upstairs might need the upstairs socket circuit to be rewired, as strictly you can only have one extra socket spurred off the main circuit.

Is it not one extra socket spurred of each existing socket in the ring?

Yeah I'm not sure where tacpot12 is getting his information from......

TheProfessional

Thanks for the comments 

Another member of their team is coming on Monday as I have asked them to chat about the cost of a rewire and to do the jobs that have been flagged up.

It seems that if the wiring seems fine at 25 years we can continue a while longer. Maybe it will last until a decoration some  years in the future. We are here long term hopefully

Risteard I haven't put the other pages on. Is there anything on the findings that you think don't make sense with regard to your comment on incompetence? 
The unearthed light switch is something I asked him about as it had a vibration feeling when touching it (brushed metal effect)
What would be missing on a 17th edition test to an 18th edition?

Thanks 

Risteard

TheProfessional said:

Thanks for the comments 

Another member of their team is coming on Monday as I have asked them to chat about the cost of a rewire and to do the jobs that have been flagged up.

It seems that if the wiring seems fine at 25 years we can continue a while longer. Maybe it will last until a decoration some  years in the future. We are here long term hopefully

Risteard I haven't put the other pages on. Is there anything on the findings that you think don't make sense with regard to your comment on incompetence? 
The unearthed light switch is something I asked him about as it had a vibration feeling when touching it (brushed metal effect)
What would be missing on a 17th edition test to an 18th edition?

Thanks 

There are numerous issues with the report:

Numer of ways is listed as "10x tpn" - I presume "tpn" is intended to be TPN, which would mean three-phase & neutral. However this is a single phase supply and distribution board.

The shower and cooker are listed as having 6mm^2 live conductors with 4mm^2 cpc. Presuming that these are wired in standard T&E cable then the cpc would actually be 2.5mm^2.

No circuit numbers are listed in the schedule of test results.

The maximum permitted Zs for the circuits are listed as 80% of the value. They should be stated at 100% of the value, with a comparison against 80% figures for thermal reasons when operating at temperature. However it should be the design values stated here, which is the 100% figure.

The r2 continuity for "Power Kitchen" is slightly higher than it should be for 2.5/1.5 cable, which may be indicative of a loose connection on the cpc which really should be investigated and noted in the observations - although admittedly it is only fairly marginally higher than it should be.

The report contains the wording "Main Earth Conductor". This is the fault of NAPIT rather than the contractor, as it is pre-printed on the form. However there is no such thing as a "Main Earthing Conductor". That conductor is called the Earthing Conductor, and there is only one for an installation. So there can be no "main" or "supplementary" of it. BS7671 clearly states that it is called the Earthing Conductor. NAPIT really should know better, and hopefully their up-to-date forms have addressed this incorrect terminology.

The Main Switch is listed as a BS EN 60947-3 device, which is a switch disconnector. "Fuse/device rating or setting" is listed as 100A, though that won't really apply to a switch disconnector. Current rating at 100A would be sufficient. This is a minor detail so I haven't judged too harshly for this mistake.

"Redundant cables and fused spur remove from under stairs" - what is this relating to? If the cables are redundant and not live then what is the issue, other than they might look messy. Why is there a C3 observation? Which Regulation is breached by this? If it doesn't breach a Regulation in BS7671 then it cannot be coded as such.

"Bell transformer Changed (old and coil buzzing)" - if it's been changed then a report isn't there to certify that work. If it has been changed then what is the observation relating to?

Item No. 4 - it is mentioned that there are two cable sizes here, presumably "C 10" meaning on circuit number 10. However the schedule of test results lists this as having 2.5/1.5 cable, with no mention of there being 1/1 cable on this as well.

Item No. 6 - bonding to gas and water must be two cables instead of one looped across. Which Regulation in BS7671 states this? That is not a requirement of the Wiring Regulations, and so if done correctly should not attract any code.

His comments below about replacing the switch until earth fault is rectified - a cpc not connected is not an "Earth fault". An Earth fault means a live conductor being in contact with exposed conductive parts of the installation.

I would consider it to be a very poor report.

And as I mentioned it has been prohibited to use 17th Edition EICR paperwork since 1/1/19. New paperwork would contain additional things such as the test voltage at which insulation resistance testing was carried out, and would also have a tickbox for verification of AFDDs (Arc-Fault Detection Devices). (Your installation does not contain AFDDs, but the forms should have this on them.) Also the schedule of inspections will have numerous boxes relating to requirements of BS 7671:2018 (2020), some of which would not be present on BS 7671:2008 (2015) paperwork. I would report him to NAPIT solely on the basis of using outdated forms even before considering any other issues. They would be very upset about this, and rightly so. BS 7671:2008 is a withdrawn standard, which was replaced by BS 7671:2018. I would have concerns that this charlatan is not even familliar with the requirements of BS 7671:2018 (2020) - which is the standard any periodic inspection and testing must be carried out in accordance with.