EICR Faults

[JohnW2]

I too liked to be able to see previous reports where available.

See what I've just written in response to ebee.

I think it's a great idea, and potentially valuable/important to see previous reports - BUT I don't think one should see those reports before providing one's report on the present condition of the installation.

 

[pete01]

In a house with 7 circuits you dont really need the old report.

In a factory with 1000 circuits it's a big time saver...trust me.

 

[ericmark]

In a house with 7 circuits you dont really need the old report.

In a factory with 1000 circuits it's a big time saver...trust me.

Yes, people seem to forget, an EICR is not just for homes, the report is also used for commercial premises. Without the old report, it would be easy to miss out whole chunks of the installation.

 

[ebee]

Yes, people seem to forget, an EICR is not just for homes, the report is also used for commercial premises. Without the old report, it would be easy to miss out whole chunks of the installation.

Hmm, not too sure I agree with that, there should be schedules etc making things clear from the outside and amended where appropriate because of additions/alterations (I did say "should").

 

[pete01]

Hmm, not too sure I agree with that, there should be schedules etc making things clear from the outside and amended where appropriate because of additions/alterations (I did say "should").

Ive tested some places with 20 boards and not one marked up.

If you're the first person to touch it in 30 years it's a nightmare, if someone has done all the hard work 3 years previously you need to see the paper work.

 

[pete01]

When I test now I always mark like this, it takes a bit of time but when you come back in 3/5 years you are glad you done it.

Obviously not in houses...home owners dont like it.

 

[ebee]

Apologies. It's probably 'just me' but having read that paragraph a dozen or more times, I think I still need some clarification as to what you are trying to say

Sorry John, I might have put my remark clumsily (I known what I mean but not conveying it to others). It is an example I`ve repeated before.

Example - two domestic installations, identical in every way.
One was wired/rewired when much older regs versions were current at that time.
The other was wired/rewired more recently (maybe yesterday).

Both are tested and inspected and then compared to our regs current version at the time it is inspected.
Both attain either a pass or fail in effect (actually a satisfactory or unsatisfactory).

Some people seem to have the opinion that because it complied years ago that it must be ok now.
No that does not alter the outcome of the inspection verdict. That would be ludicrous!
(we might have some niggle about the age of the particular cables and accessories though).

Two exactly identical installations, used in exactly the same way (in so far as we can tell) and each having two adults and 2.4 children) can only be considered as having the same outcome, regardless of age and what we used to allow but no longer do so.

But how many times have I heard otherwise? It is ridiculous. Some practising sparks think the older one would be Ok but the newer one would not be OK (I use the term "OK" in regards to safety to life, livestock and property).

I hope that makes my point clearer not muddier

 

[ebee]

Ive tested some places with 20 boards and not one marked up.

If you're the first person to touch it in 30 years it's a nightmare, if someone has done all the hard work 3 years previously you need to see the paper work.

Thats why I made the comment about the word "should", I do not disagree with what you say, I do know that happens, frequently!

 

[ebee]

Just on a simple domestic type installation back in the days when the Wylex 604 was common, all those rewireable fuses, nothing marked, three Reds, one Blue and two whites.
Your first guess might be (before removing the cover) "Is it two rings, one cooker, one immersion heater and two lighting radials?
No schedule in sight no labels in sight. If there actually were some labels like Lights, Power, Cooker, Hot Water the you`d think "ha a clue of sorts!" but sometimes the label was actually on the fuse (or MCB) so could have been swapped even if correct at the outset.
Quite a common sight too I`m afraid.

 

[Murdochcat]

See what I've just written in response to ebee.

I think it's a great idea, and potentially valuable/important to see previous reports - BUT I don't think one should see those reports before providing one's report on the present condition of the installation.

Why? The model forms clearly asks if installation records available and the date of the last inspection. I rather suspect that if you are going to answer those points accurately then you need to review the existing records.

From experience comparing the last report to the report you are doing often reveals changes made to the installation between the 2 dates

 

[ebee]

Why? The model forms clearly asks if installation records available and the date of the last inspection. I rather suspect that if you are going to answer those points accurately then you need to review the existing records.

From experience comparing the last report to the report you are doing often reveals changes made to the installation between the 2 dates

Yes I agree with that.

John makes the point that we might risk becoming biased, even unintentionally and unknowingly, I do not disagree with him on that risk

 

[Risteard]

Sorry John, I might have put my remark clumsily (I known what I mean but not conveying it to others). It is an example I`ve repeated before.

Example - two domestic installations, identical in every way.
One was wired/rewired when much older regs versions were current at that time.
The other was wired/rewired more recently (maybe yesterday).

Both are tested and inspected and then compared to our regs current version at the time it is inspected.
Both attain either a pass or fail in effect (actually a satisfactory or unsatisfactory).

Some people seem to have the opinion that because it complied years ago that it must be ok now.
No that does not alter the outcome of the inspection verdict. That would be ludicrous!
(we might have some niggle about the age of the particular cables and accessories though).

Two exactly identical installations, used in exactly the same way (in so far as we can tell) and each having two adults and 2.4 children) can only be considered as having the same outcome, regardless of age and what we used to allow but no longer do so.

But how many times have I heard otherwise? It is ridiculous. Some practising sparks think the older one would be Ok but the newer one would not be OK (I use the term "OK" in regards to safety to life, livestock and property).

I hope that makes my point clearer not muddier

Indeed. It demonstrates fundamental stupidity and should require brutal reeducation with a wooden spoon and Chinese water torture. The date of installation is not relevant (aside from age of cables and accessories etc.)

 

[JohnW2]

In a house with 7 circuits you dont really need the old report.
In a factory with 1000 circuits it's a big time saver...trust me.

My house has about 35 circuits, across about 8 CUs - I wonder how you would classify that?

In the case of a 1,000-circuits factory (or even my house) what is a 'big time saver' is having access tio good documentation of the installation. If one is going to undertake the current I&T properly, I can't see how/why knowledge of previous I&T findings will (should!) make one's current task any easier. As I'm said, after one has completed one's inspection and issued a report, one should then look at any previous reports/information, and then comment on any significant changes/differences if necessary.

As has been said, one of the worries (particularly for domestic installations) in the hands oif of 'black sheep', sight of a prior report could be a massive 'time saver' - since, rather than doing any I&T, they could simply copy/paste (with some slight changes, if they were 'sensible') from the previous report!

There is probably one complication in relation to the commercial stuff. Somewhat to my surprise, previous discussions here have suggested that EICRs on large commercial installations may only be undertaken on a relatively small proportion of the circuits. If that's the case, it is obvious important to know which circuits have (and have not) been previously looked at -since, otherwise, some may never get inspected. However, again, there is no need to know the results of previous inspections until after one has reported on the current condition of whatever has been inspected.

 

[Risteard]

My house has about 35 circuits, across about 8 CUs - I wonder how you would classify that?

In the case of a 1,000-circuits factory (or even my house) what is a 'big time saver' is having access tio good documentation of the installation. If one is going to undertake the current I&T properly, I can't see how/why knowledge of previous I&T findings will (should!) make one's current task any easier. As I'm said, after one has completed one's inspection and issued a report, one should then look at any previous reports/information, and then comment on any significant changes/differences if necessary.

As has been said, one of the worries (particularly for domestic installations) in the hands oif of 'black sheep', sight of a prior report could be a massive 'time saver' - since, rather than doing any I&T, they could simply copy/paste (with some slight changes, if they were 'sensible') from the previous report!

There is probably one complication in relation to the commercial stuff. Somewhat to my surprise, previous discussions here have suggested that EICRs on large commercial installations may only be undertaken on a relatively small proportion of the circuits. If that's the case, it is obvious important to know which circuits have (and have not) been previously looked at -since, otherwise, some may never get inspected. However, again, there is no need to know the results of previous inspections until after one has reported on the current condition of whatever has been inspected.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Knowing about previous findings IN ADVANCE can allow for more thorough and targeted inspection of potentially concerning parts of the installation. Reading the previous Report after the fact prevents this.

 

[pete01]

I can't see how/why knowledge of previous I&T findings will (should!) make one's current task any easier.

I'll try and give you an example.

Mr maintenance man.... I can't find where this 63 amp socket is fed from can I turn all circuits off one be one?

Answer 1 (no previous report)

No sorry you'll have to find that over a night or on a Sunday sorry...

Answer 2 (previous report and well labelled)

Sure you can mate its fed via DB6 circuit 5TP.