Zinsco panel remark

[Mike Lamb]

What do you think of this remark in my report:

·         The electric panel in the condo unit is a Zinsco type which has a bad history of circuit breaker failure. I opened the panel and did not see any apparent issues. However, considering the poor documented performance of this type of panel I recommend an electrician take a closer look for any deficiencies that might cause call for panel replacement.

[Bill Kibbel]

My preference is to just tell them it needs relacement.

[Jerry Simon]

26 minutes ago, Bill Kibbel said:

My preference is to just tell them it needs relacement.

Yeah, in about so many words.

Zinsco electrical panels are inherently dangerous.  Have the panel replaced ASAP.

Edited November 27 by Jerry Simon
.

[Mike Lamb]

Thanks.

[Chad Fabry]

Around here, Zinscos make Federal Pacific look like a Cadillac. "voted most likely to set your house on fire"

[Tom Raymond]

I recommend replacement, then ask if I can have it. I have an outbuilding that needs a panel and I wouldn't mind if it burned down.

[Jim Katen]

On 11/26/2024 at 8:21 AM, Mike Lamb said:

What do you think of this remark in my report:

·         The electric panel in the condo unit is a Zinsco type which has a bad history of circuit breaker failure. I opened the panel and did not see any apparent issues. However, considering the poor documented performance of this type of panel I recommend an electrician take a closer look for any deficiencies that might cause call for panel replacement.

Are you looking for opinions about what your said or how you said it? 

[Mike Lamb]

On 12/8/2024 at 10:11 AM, Jim Katen said:

Are you looking for opinions about what your said or how you said it? 

Both.

[Mike Lamb]

As a minor thread drift, a recent client received this from her insurer, and wanted to double check that the panels in her building were not FP. 

“Please note that Cambridge Mutual will cancel coverage if they come out to inspect the property and they find Federal Pacific Breakers or Stab Lok's”

[Jim Katen]

On 11/26/2024 at 8:21 AM, Mike Lamb said:

What do you think of this remark in my report:

·         The electric panel in the condo unit is a Zinsco type which has a bad history of circuit breaker failure. I opened the panel and did not see any apparent issues. However, considering the poor documented performance of this type of panel I recommend an electrician take a closer look for any deficiencies that might cause call for panel replacement.

Regarding what you're saying: I'm never in favor of recommending "further evaluation" when I know full well that the thing should be replaced. I figure I'm being hired for my opinion, not to defer to others for their opinion. 

Regarding how you say it:

First sentence. You really don't need "in the condo." Isn't everything in your report in the condo? You could say: 

"The electric panel is a Zinsco type which has a bad history of circuit breaker failure." But then there's that missing comma after "type". Do you really need "which"? Is it important that the failures have to do with circuit breakers, or are there other failures at work? Also, is it a bad history of failures or a history of bad failures? Maybe tighten it up some more and make it more emphatic: 

"Zinsco electric panels have a notorious history of failure." 

The next two sentences could be merged and greatly shortened. They also don't make a lot of sense. What's an electrician going to see that you didn't see? Do you really want to say that you looked inside the panel and saw no problems, but if an electrician looks in it, he might see problems? Maybe just avoid contrasting your evaluation with an electrician's evaluation: 

"While I saw no signs of active failure inside the panel today, that might change tomorrow. Hire an electrician to replace it."