EICR Faults

[JohnW2]

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.

Thanks for clarifying!

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.

Well, they're just plain wrong, aren't they? There is surely no doubt that an EICR should reflect a comparison of the installation with the regs at the time of the inspection, the aim being to identify any non-conformities with regs at the time f the inspection?

I think that what causes confusion is the fact that identified non-conformity with current regs does not necessarily indicate non-compliance (per current BS7671 definition) which warrants coding (or a particular coding on an EICR. PlasticCUs (undoubtedly compliant at the time of installation) are a common present-day example. As we hear, some inspectors will today give a C2, most probably a C3 and some not code it at all.

That choice between C3, C2 and nothing is down to the judgement/discretion which inspectors are currently allowed to exercise and to some extent is backed up by the fact that, as eric is always telling us, every edition of BS7671 says that things now non-compliant with current regs but which were compliant at the time of installation are "not necessarily unsafe for continued use" (which, of course, implies that they might be 'unsafe' - the inspector to make that judgement)

 

[JohnW2]

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.

As I wrote, what is needed (particularly in a large commercial/industrial installation) to achieve your Answer 2 is very good documentation of the installation (which should exist) - and is no way helped by knowledge of previous I&T findings

 

[pete01]

As I wrote, what is needed (particularly in a large commercial/industrial installation) to achieve your Answer 2 is very good documentation of the installation (which should exist) - and is no way helped by knowledge of previous I&T findings

But all that info is in the previous report

 

[JohnW2]

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.

That's a rather worrying statement/admission.

Are you really suggesting that you (or anyone) would (should) inspect and test parts of an installation less carefully/ properly/ thoroughly if those parts had not been identified as being of 'potential concern' at an earlier inspection.

One should approach any inspection process 'with an open mind' - which, in this context, means that one should accept that something previously satisfactory may have become unsatisfactory, so that possibility needs to be investigated just as thoroughly/properly as in the case in which there were pre-existing 'concerns' expressed in a prior report.

 

[JohnW2]

But all that info is in the previous report

By no means necessarily in an EICR - proper documentation, with plans etc., is far better (quite apart from the fact that an EICR contains potentially 'biasing' information that does not help to understand the structure of the installation)

 

[pete01]

By no means necessarily in an EICR - proper documentation, with plans etc., is far better (quite apart from the fact that an EICR contains potentially 'biasing' information that does not help to understand the structure of the installation)

If I turned up to a big testing job and the owner said we've had it tested every 3/5 years for the past 30 years but I'm not giving you any of that info.....I'd think what dick head

 

[JohnW2]

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

Quite. Returning to my personal experience of providing 'second opinion' reports, it has quite often been the case that, before starting, I have been required to sign a declaration that I have not been exposed to information about other analyses/opinions/whatever relating to the matter in question.

This means that, in some cases, clients have to 'shop around' to find someone to provide the second opinion who is able to sign such a declaration.

 

[Risteard]

That's a rather worrying statement/admission.

Are you really suggesting that you (or anyone) would (should) inspect and test parts of an installation less carefully/ properly/ thoroughly if those parts had not been identified as being of 'potential concern' at an earlier inspection.

One should approach any inspection process 'with an open mind' - which, in this context, means that one should accept that something previously satisfactory may have become unsatisfactory, so that possibility needs to be investigated just as thoroughly/properly as in the case in which there were pre-existing 'concerns' expressed in a prior report.

No. That's a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote. Reports should be reviewed in advance of inspection and testing for good reason.

 

[JohnW2]

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.

I'm talking about how I think things should be done, which is not necessarily the same as how they currently are done.

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

That's true, but (for reasons I've) explained, it should not be like that. It would be fine if what you'd written had been:

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

 

[JohnW2]

No. That's a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote.

It's the logical corollary of what you wrote. If you are going to conduct a "more thorough and targeted inspection of potentially concerning parts of the installation" (on the basic of prior reports), the implication has to be that you would conduct a "less thorough inspection" of things that were fine at the time of the previous report.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Perhaps a reason for all the confusion in EICRs:

Could anyone translate this definition?

There is no definition of conformity or non-conformity.

Does that mean that there are BOTH non-compliances AND non-conformities which may NOT give rise to danger?

I.e. a zen diagram with two circles; one for non-compliances and one for non-conformities:

Does only the overlap I have coloured red warrant a C2 - or are there non-compliances which may give rise to danger in their own right (although not a non-conformity) and non-conformities which may not give rise to danger?

 

[ericmark]

I use to consider, if paperwork supplies before I started then done with consideration of the age, if not, then consider as a new installation and any thing not conforming with current edition should be listed, as often an EICR was used to get LABC completion certificate, so it needed completing as if it was an EIC.

 

[plugwash]

Are you really suggesting that you (or anyone) would (should) inspect and test parts of an installation less carefully/ properly/ thoroughly if those parts had not been identified as being of 'potential concern' at an earlier inspection.

My understanding is that 100% intrusive inspection is not the "done thing" on a EICR. The "done thing" is a superficial inspection of the entire installation, plus an intrusive inspection of a sample of points, plus testing between the origin and furthest point of each circuit. So directing a more thorough inspection at known problem spots does not seem at all unreasonable.

I would also think that in a well-controlled installation, any change in figures would be of interest, even if those figures are within limits, since a change in figures would likely be indicative of either degradation or undocumented and potentially unauthorised modifications.

 

[ebee]

I use to consider, if paperwork supplies before I started then done with consideration of the age, if not, then consider as a new installation and any thing not conforming with current edition should be listed, as often an EICR was used to get LABC completion certificate, so it needed completing as if it was an EIC.

?

 

[ericmark]

?

If no paperwork, I assume new, and test as a new installation.