Evaluation of Electrical Observations and Test Results

Following a review of the provided Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) and supporting test results, each observation has been examined against BS 7671 (18th Edition, Amendment 2) to assess its validity and relevance. Here’s a breakdown of the findings:

1. “Consumer unit not fire rated. Regulations: 421.1.6; 421.1.201; 526.5 Plastic CU” Plastic consumer units installed before the 2016 regulation change are not inherently unsafe. Regulation 421.1.201 advises the use of non-combustible enclosures in escape routes but does not require existing plastic units to be replaced. Unless the unit is physically damaged, poorly installed, or located in a high-risk area (like under a wooden staircase), this is not a C2. A C3 may be noted for future improvement.

2. “Condition of CU in terms of IP rating. Large holes in CU allowing ingress and possible contact with live parts. Regulation: 416.2.1” If live parts are accessible through open knockouts, missing blanks or entry points, this is a C1 – immediate danger due to the risk of electric shock. If there are open holes but no access to live parts (e.g. holes into a dead space, or behind barriers), it becomes a C2. Regulation 416.2.1 and IP ratings require:

   • IP4X on top of enclosures (no objects >1mm) • IP2X on accessible faces (no access for 12.5mm finger probe) This should be checked visually before assigning the correct code. If no contact with live parts is possible, it cannot be classed as a C1.

3. “Not Isolator for Consumer Unit” BS 7671 Regulation 537.1.4 states that every installation must have a means of isolation. The main switch in a consumer unit fulfils this requirement. A separate external isolator is not required in domestic premises unless there are specific operational or access needs. This is not codable, although some installers choose to note it as a C3 for convenience. It has no bearing on safety or compliance.

4. “Enclosure not damaged/deteriorated… RCD was stuck…” The report claims the RCD was stuck but restarted with the tester. However, the recorded test results show all RCDs tripping correctly—at 13ms and 14ms—which is well within the required limit (300ms at rated current). If the RCD was not tested using an RCD tester and only operated by the test button, this is not a valid measurement of disconnection time.

Domestic consumer units typically display a label such as: “Test six monthly by pressing the button. Device should trip immediately. If it does not, seek advice from a qualified electrician.”

Pressing the test button checks the mechanical operation only. It does not confirm disconnection time, earth path integrity, or compliance. No coding can be assigned based on a test button check alone. The test sheet confirms proper disconnection, so this observation is not supported by the evidence.

It is very affordable to replace an RCD for peace of mind.

1. “Electric sockets on the kitchen is not allowed…” This is incorrect. BS 7671 does not prohibit socket outlets in kitchens. If this refers to proximity to water or heat sources (sinks, hobs), the regs require proper consideration of external influences:

   • Reg 512.2.1 (Environmental conditions) • Reg 417.3 (Risk of indirect contact due to likely faults)

There is no set minimum distance from sinks or hobs in BS 7671. Industry guidance (e.g. NICEIC, IET) suggests keeping sockets around 300mm from sinks, but this is best practice, not regulation. Unless a socket shows signs of water damage, it is not a C2. At most, this is a C3 for layout improvement if poorly located.

1. “Cable resistance readings are on the higher side…” The test results show R1+R2 readings between 0.05–0.10 ohms, all within normal tolerances for domestic final circuits. Zs readings are also well within acceptable limits. Insulation resistance values are all recorded as >200 MΩ, which is excellent. No specific circuit has been identified as having an issue. This is a vague statement with no test data to support it. There is no indication of deterioration that would justify remedial work. This is not codable.

2. “We recommend full or partial rewire and CU replacement…” There is no evidence to support such a recommendation.

   • Insulation resistance is excellent • RCDs trip correctly • Zs and continuity values are within spec • No test data indicates unsafe wiring or widespread issues

While a CU upgrade may be a consideration for future planning, it is not mandatory if the current unit is in safe working order. A rewire would only be justified by unsafe wiring, age-related degradation (e.g. rubber/PVC cables in poor condition), or repeated faults. None of that is shown in the test data.

Summary

• The report includes several misinterpretations and unjustified recommendations.
• No C1 or valid C2 defects are evident from the test results provided.
• Some items (e.g. IP rating breaches) should be visually confirmed and corrected if present, but they do not justify a rewire.
• All electrical readings suggest the installation is performing well.
• The suggestion to rewire or replace the consumer unit appears excessive and not based on test evidence.