Of course, and that was my point - that although Part P does not apply to non-domestic situations, BS7671 and many other laws/regulations do - which is why I was surprised than non-exhaustive inspections/testing were acceptable in such environments.
Indeed - and although you seem to believe that (1) id the most common cause of EICR findings, (3) remains a possibility, no less in non-domestic installations than domestic ones - so I'm surprised that it is not considered necessary to look for such problems, on all circuits, during an EICR. As I have just written, 'deteriorations over time' (which are not necessarily apparent to the user) do happen in electrical installations, whether one calls that 'wear and tear' or not.
Kind Regards, John
This is painful. You complain that electricians follow the rules like sheep, until somebody says they don't and then they are cowboys leaving the people of the uk in perpetual danger. I have NOT said installations are not inspected exhaustively. I have pointed out that where there are trustworthy records it is an industry practice to test a sample of the installation.
Of course, and that was my point - that although Part P does not apply to non-domestic situations, BS7671 and many other laws/regulations do - which is why I was surprised than non-exhaustive inspections/testing were acceptable in such environments.
Indeed - and although you seem to believe that (1) id the most common cause of EICR findings, (3) remains a possibility, no less in non-domestic installations than domestic ones - so I'm surprised that it is not considered necessary to look for such problems, on all circuits, during an EICR. As I have just written, 'deteriorations over time' (which are not necessarily apparent to the user) do happen in electrical installations, whether one calls that 'wear and tear' or not.
Kind Regards, John
The 1-3 list is not meant to rank the causes, it is just my personal list. The wear and term comparison refers to the differenece between an MOT and an EICR.