ECIR Failed due to light pendant covering missing?

[EFLImpudence]

Quick. correct typo before anyone notices.

 

[somedream]

After sending an email with all the issues, constant non-replies and asking for an immediate refund they've now sent over an updated EICR (still failed of course) with the "light pendant are not cover with proper case" updated to C3 (which I didn't ask for them to do, just explain the regulation is violating and what they mean by 'proper case') and "Old type CCU non cumbastable material under stair case" to C3 too.

The only thing left as C2 is "Zs exceeded limit in 2 socket outlet" which I guess I will have to get checked before a pass... They are brand new sockets (like 7 months old) I had put into the wall when I had it replastered recently to fit on a TV. Hopefully, there are no issues under the wall and maybe just bad sockets... Now to find a local sparky to investigate.

And if my understanding is correct, I just need to get someone to investigate/fix/replace, write a letter confirming it's been done, and along with the failed EICR, that I would be compliant?

 

[EFLImpudence]

The only thing left as C2 is "Zs exceeded limit in 2 socket outlet" which I guess I will have to get checked before a pass... They are brand new sockets (like 7 months old) I had put into the wall when I had it replastered recently to fit on a TV. Hopefully, there are no issues under the wall and maybe just bad sockets... Now to find a local sparky to investigate.

None of the values on the test results is over the limit - although circuit 9 has no figures entered for 'number of points' nor 'maximum Zs'.

 

[SimonH2]

And I note there are 3 RCD times missing and marked N/A. If there's an RCD then N/A isn't a valid result. Either they tested it and it didn't trip (properly/at all) in which case that would warrant an entry in the defect list. Or they didn't test it, in which case, why not - there's no reason I can think of for not testing all the RCDs in one go while your MFT and leads are set up for it.
So a "report" that's not fit for purpose.

Given the short timescales, you could be struggling to find another electrician - I hope you do. For the sockets over limit on Zs, one potential fix for that would be to simply downgrade the circuit by fitting a 25A or 20A breaker - but your new (and hopefully competent) electrician would be able to advise on that.

But sadly, there are a lot charlatans appeared out of the woodwork and taking full advantage of the short timescales landlords find themselves with.

 

[JohnW2]

... For the sockets over limit on Zs, one potential fix for that would be to simply downgrade the circuit by fitting a 25A or 20A breaker ...

As EFLI observed, none of the recorded Zs figures appear to be 'over limit' (although one is missing).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

OK, I should have written something like "if it turns out that ... then that can be fixed by ..." It may be that the missing value was for sockets that are over limit for Zs

 

[Risteard]

The English in that report is utterly terrible.

I would write an email, asking them which scheme they are members of and lodging a formal complaint citing:

1. The poor English. It's just unprofessional and inexcusable. If they have been slapdash writing up the report, it suggests sloppiness on the site visit.

2. The inconsistencies between what you were told by the spark and what ended up on the report.

3. The lack of a regulation numbers being cited in respect of the C2 and the EFLI issue.

Ask them for a refund because that report is incomplete and inaccurate.

There is no requirement to list Regulation numbers next to observations. After all, the person receiving the report won't have access to BS7671 anyway.

 

[securespark]

I would list them and I suspect that other conscientious sparks would, too.

It does not matter that the receiver of the report may not understand them or have access to the book, it shows that you know what you are talking about and can back up your decisions.

Do I take it you wouldn't?

 

[SimonH2]

As we've seen time and time again here, without reg numbers it's often impossible to work out what the inspector thinks is wrong. Moreso when the descriptions are also a bit vague.

 

[Risteard]

I would list them and I suspect that other conscientious sparks would, too.

It does not matter that the receiver of the report may not understand them or have access to the book, it shows that you know what you are talking about and can back up your decisions.

Do I take it you wouldn't?

Industry advice is that they should not be included. The Regulation numbers are not important to the person receiving the Report. Rather, an understanding of what the issue is is what's important. Therefore I follow the industry guidance and do not include them as the Report is intended to be disseminated by a non-technical person.

Any Observation listed must, of course, actually breach a Regulation in BS7671 however. I describe clearly the issue, using wording used in the Regulation so that it is clear what the problem is (e.g. "AC final circuit(s) supplying luminaires in domestic (household) premises not protected by an RCD with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30mA") and include locations where relevant.

 

[JohnW2]

Industry advice is that they should not be included. ... Therefore I follow the industry guidance and do not include them as the Report is intended to be disseminated by a non-technical person.

What "Industry advice/guidance" would that be?

 

[Risteard]

What "Industry advice/guidance" would that be?

As an example, from the Electrical Safety Council: "Only observations that can be supported by one or more regulations in the edition of BS 7671 current at the time of the periodic inspection should be recorded. The particular regulation number(s) need not be entered in the report (unless specifically required by the client), but should serve to remind the inspector that it is only compliance with BS 7671 that is to be considered. Observations based solely on personal preference or ‘custom and practice’ should not be included."

Other guidance states more categorically that Regulation numbers should not be included as these are not meaningful to the person receiving the Report.

 

[JohnW2]

As an example, from the Electrical Safety Council: "Only observations that can be supported by one or more regulations in the edition of BS 7671 current at the time of the periodic inspection should be recorded. The particular regulation number(s) need not be entered in the report (unless specifically required by the client), but should serve to remind the inspector that it is only compliance with BS 7671 that is to be considered. Observations based solely on personal preference or ‘custom and practice’ should not be included."

"need not be" seems to fall well short of 'prohibition'.

Other guidance states more categorically that Regulation numbers should not be included as these are not meaningful to the person receiving the Report.

What are these 'other guidances', then?

 

[ericmark]

Only observations that can be supported by one or more regulations in the edition of BS 7671 current at the time of the periodic inspection should be recorded.

That is clearly not correct as a visual check should be made of the DNO's equipment which does not come under BS 7671.

I do feel for the new landlord law to exclude and include items which are different to a standard EICR is wrong. I not under the landlord law DNO equipment is excluded and any equipment not normally moved is included. Yet the guide says washing machines etc are not included even when the law says they are.

To my mind there has always been two electrical inspections, the inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment (PAT testing) and the electrical installation condition report which only includes wiring overloads, RCD's etc. Technically a smashed bulb having exposed live parts is under the inspection and testing of in service electrical equipment however not to report any health and safety issue in writing which has been seen would break the electricity at work act, and clearly the electrician is at work, so must be reported in writing by law. However this would also include a smashed bottle of cooking oil which would present a hazard of slipping on the oil.

It seems pedantic but I have seen the factory inspector threaten to take a guy to court for not reporting a fault in writing, it was clear the worker was trying to get management in trouble by telling the inspector, but the in writing rule is still good, I have had garbled radio messages of a fault in unit 5, and unit 5 manager did not have a clue why I had been called, and I could not see why, so who ever called me I am sure was genuine but I had no idea what was wrong so nothing done. It needed it to be in writing so there is a record.

But would you really write down on an EICR smashed bottle of cooking oil, I would hope not. And although you should report in writing, I would have thought cleaning it up would be a better option. I know with PAT testing I had packets of 3 amp fuses, and where a lead set (flex) was under size for a 13 amp I would simply swap the fuse.

With an EICR one would hope the premises are not left in a dangerous condition, so with a smashed socket the inspector has three options, lock off the circuit, or swap the socket, or close down the whole property, and one would hope he/she would use the phone and get instructions, with the landlord law the inspector must be competent to undertake any remedial work, so he has no excuse for not doing the work required to make safe.

I have only twice walked away from a job with faults when asked to repair them, and I was not the only electrician and had a plane to catch. So yes it does happen, my wife would have already been on her way to pick me up from airport, I was not missing the plane.

 

[Risteard]

"need not be" seems to fall well short of 'prohibition'.
What are these 'other guidances', then?

I never stated that it was "prohibited" - I stated that it shouldn't be done.