EICR Questions

[SimonH2]

My thoughts ...
½ hour means he barely got the tools out of the van let alone did the inspection & testing required.
There should be more faults listed - for starters :

• Cables buried less than 50mm deep & not RCD protected.
  
• Similarly for BC/ES lamp holders in domestic premises not RCD protected.
• Bathroom lamp should list the fault - e.g. not adequately IP rated for location.
• Bathroom light could also throw up a fault due to lack of RCD protection on an item in the bathroom.
  
• CU should be listed as not of non-combustible material ...

Makes the common but inexcusable mistake of saying what ti do rather than what the problem is. Just the simple "not all circuits RCD protected" issue should produce a number of faults - from memory "one" issue caused six items on the fault list last time I had one done.

As to recording RCD results. I'd have done one test and putbthe results on the line where he's put "RCD" in the circuit description. Really no excuse for not recording them unless he didn't do them.

And isn't a Domestic Installer one of those "go on a 5 day course and you can carry on botching kitchen/bathroom installs" qualifications ?

 

[donrkebab]

My thoughts ...
½ hour means he barely got the tools out of the van let alone did the inspection & testing required.
There should be more faults listed - for starters :

• Cables buried less than 50mm deep & not RCD protected.
  
• Similarly for BC/ES lamp holders in domestic premises not RCD protected.
• Bathroom lamp should list the fault - e.g. not adequately IP rated for location.
• Bathroom light could also throw up a fault due to lack of RCD protection on an item in the bathroom.
  
• CU should be listed as not of non-combustible material ...

Makes the common but inexcusable mistake of saying what ti do rather than what the problem is. Just the simple "not all circuits RCD protected" issue should produce a number of faults - from memory "one" issue caused six items on the fault list last time I had one done.

As to recording RCD results. I'd have done one test and putbthe results on the line where he's put "RCD" in the circuit description. Really no excuse for not recording them unless he didn't do them.

And isn't a Domestic Installer one of those "go on a 5 day course and you can carry on botching kitchen/bathroom installs" qualifications ?

The faults listed are incorrect because the regs are not retrospective. An EICR should only state factual discrepancies based on the regs at the time of installation, and that depends on the experience and knowledge of the inspector.

It's ok to advise noncompliance with latest regs, but that is not a reason for negative comments or failing an installation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

An EICR should only state factual discrepancies based on the regs at the time of installation

Utter nonsense.

 

[donrkebab]

Utter nonsense.

From the fantasy enthusiastic amateur electrician, I'm a professional from the real world.

I note that you don't say why what I've said is wrong, you just couldn't wait to get your trademark insults started.

 

[JohnW2]

I note that you don't say why what I've said is wrong ...

Well, for a start, it will quite often be the case that the "time of installation" (hence "the regs at the time of installation") will not be known precisely, in which case your proposal would be unworkable.

Probably more to the point, it is acceptable and common practice to give a C3 ("improvement recommended") to something that was compliant with regs at the time of installation, but not compliant with current regs. Indeed, in some such situations, BS7671 requires at least a C3, for example ...

 

[donrkebab]

System is preventing my legible response.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

From the fantasy enthusiastic amateur electrician, I'm a professional from the real world.

And yet you don't know how to carry out inspections for the purpose of an EICR. How strange.

I note that you don't say why what I've said is wrong

As JW2 said, there's no practical way that an electrician can have a knowledge of earlier editions.

Then there's the fact that installations get added to and changed over time, so how could anybody date a particular socket-with-no-RCD, for example? How would you code a non-RCD socket that complied with the 15th, but not the 17th? What logic, or electrical engineering principles mean that the condition of the socket now should be different depending on when it was installed, even if you knew?

An EICR is a report on the condition of the installation as it is when you inspect and test it, so you code things according to the regulations which apply when you inspect and test it. Nothing else makes any sense, and nothing else is workable.

you just couldn't wait to get your trademark insults started.

If you don't want utter nonsense to be accurately described as such, don't write it.

 

[donrkebab]

Well, for a start, it will quite often be the case that the "time of installation" (hence "the regs at the time of installation") will not be known precisely, in which case your proposal would be unworkable.

So you incorrectly believe that every item of non compliance with current regs should be recorded.

Probably more to the point, it is acceptable and common practice to give a C3 ("improvement recommended") to something that was compliant with regs at the time of installation, but not compliant with current regs. Indeed, in some such situations, BS7671 requires at least a C3, for example ...

That's why I said "It's ok to advise noncompliance with latest regs, but that is not a reason for negative comments or failing an installation"

Also you have no idea about what "is acceptable and common practice" in this industry, because you have never worked in this industry.

 

[donrkebab]

Bas, all your pointless insults ignored

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So you incorrectly believe that every item of non compliance with current regs should be recorded.

What a bizarre assertion.

It makes it look as if you incorrectly believe that there is a code for non compliance.

Can you tell us which one it is?

That's why I said "It's ok to advise noncompliance with latest regs, but that is not a reason for negative comments or failing an installation"

So no matter how many, or how egregious, non-compliances with current regulations there are on an old installation you would never say that the installation was unsatisfactory if it would have been OK 60-70, or more, years ago?

Also you have no idea about what "is acceptable and common practice" in this industry, because you have never worked in this industry.

Nor, it seems, do you, or you would never have made your original assertion.

This might help you start to research what is acceptable and common practice.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Bas, all your pointless insults ignored

You're not going to get very far if you simply try to dismiss valid criticisms as pointless insults.

 

[JohnW2]

So you incorrectly believe that every item of non compliance with current regs should be recorded.

No, not necessarily - it depends upon whether it is the judgement of the person undertaking the inspection that it is appropriate to "recommend improvement". However, many electricians do record most non-conpliances with current regs.

That's why I said "It's ok to advise noncompliance with latest regs, but that is not a reason for negative comments or failing an installation"

That depends upon what you mean by 'negative comments' and 'failing'. It was agreed back on page 1 that it would almost never be appropriate to give a code greater than C3 (which is not a 'fail') to something which would once have been compliant (in recent decades) because of non-compliance with current regs alone - and that it was totally ridiculous to give a C1 (and advise a CU replacement) because two lighting circuits and a cooker circuit were not RCD protected.

There are, of course, exceptions - some things which were compliant with regs when installed very many decades ago would not in any way be acceptable today.

Also you have no idea about what "is acceptable and common practice" in this industry...

I have a pretty good idea. For many years I have seen and reviewed several EICRs (PIRs in earlier years) every month (hence many hundreds in total), hence have a pretty good awareness of what is 'common practice'.

 

[SimonH2]

So you incorrectly believe that every item of non compliance with current regs should be recorded.

No, he (along with the rest of us in the real world) know that the procedure is to record all non-compliances with CURRENT regs, that's laid down in the BBB. There are a few grey areas and points for discussion, but you absolutely do NOT inspect & test against anything other than the current regs.
So, for example, if there is a lighting circuit without RCD protection then that should cause at least the following non-conformities to be recorded (note that it's the non-conformity stated, with the regulation number(s) applicable. This way, someone can see what the issue is, and be able to look up the regs to see what is required :

• C3 - 522.6.202 cables not enclosed in earthed metal conduit or trunking buried less than 50mm deep.
• C3 - 411.3.4 luminaire not RCD protected in domestic premises

Note that these are non conformities, they are not "faults" or "things that must be fixed". As to what does and doesn't need to be fixed, that depends on what the issue is and the risk tolerance of the householder. For example, a CU with damaged casing so someone could poke their finger in would be a C1 and need fixing ASAP, but just not having RCD protection on a lighting circuit would (IMO) be a C3.
In the past, as a landlord, I've fitted new all-RCBO CUs not because there was anything inherently unsafe (mid 90's builds, electrics done to good standard for the time, but no RCDs), but so there were no non-compliances (even C3) that a tenant might use as leverage should anything happen. Had it been my own house, I'd have swapped a couple of MCBs for RCBOs and left it at that.
As it is, they now have a non-conformity as not having a ferrous metal enclosure - but there's some discussion about whether that should be listed as a C3 or not even mentioned.

Contrast with the OPs supposed EICR where it does not state what non-conformities are present, just general statements that "xxx must be replaced". That's the sort of report generated by someone who is either completely incompetent, or is simply angling for the additional work - like the "do cheap MoTs and make the money on fixing the failures" approach used by some garages.

 

[JohnW2]

No, he (along with the rest of us in the real world) know that the procedure is to record all non-compliances with CURRENT regs, that's laid down in the BBB. There are a few grey areas and points for discussion, but you absolutely do NOT inspect & test against anything other than the current regs.

I agree with everything you say in your post.

Note that these are non conformities, they are not "faults" or "things that must be fixed"....

Indeed - and it's probably worth mentioning that, with the advent of the 18th, non-conformities are not necessarily regarded as non-compliances - since non-compliance is now defined as a non-conformity which may give rise to danger. That might give rise to a debate as to whether a non-conformity which is judged not to be a non-compliance necessarily even warrants a C3.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

That might give rise to a debate as to whether a non-conformity which is judged not to be a non-compliance necessarily even warrants a C3.

Indeed - c.f. "non combustible" CU cases I referred to in another thread.