Another EICR

[SUNRAY]

In the case Sunray reported, it would seem that there was nothing wrong with the EICR (even the C1 for a lighting circuit protected by a 32A RCBO is arguably reasonable), since it correctly reflected the current (post-EICR inspection) situation.

On the basis of what we've been told, if anything naughty was deliberately done 'to drum up work' it would have been very naughty - namely swapping the lighting and cooker circuits onto each other's RCBOs - and it would be extremely daft for even the most criminal of EICR inspectors to commit such an easily-detected crime!

I would therefore presume that 'the swap' was accidental but, as flameport has said, I think it questionable whether a person capable of such errors should be anywhere near an electrical installation, let alone undertaking EICR inspections !

Especially as the layout of the wiring in the CU looked so blatantly wrong and looked so right when restored (and the CPCs were in the correct position in the earth bar).

 

[plugwash]

it would be extremely daft for even the most criminal of EICR inspectors to commit such an easily-detected crime!

Easy enough to play it off as a mistake, or claim it was like that when they got there (at which point it would be the inspectors word vs the tennants)

 

[JohnW2]

Easy enough to play it off as a mistake, or claim it was like that when they got there (at which point it would be the inspectors word vs the tennants)

Sure, they could trey to wiggle out - but, as I wrote, I was talking about 'ease of detection'.

If malfunctions of the installation start immediately after an EICR inspection, and if further inspection reveals the 'swapped circuits', then it will be blatantly obvious that the EICR inspector was responsible - leaving him/her to argue that t was not 'deliberate'. If someone really was trying to introduce faults to generate work, one would expect them to do something which was not quite as obviously 'their work', wouldn't one?

 

[ebee]

If people are that careless they should not be anywhere near electrical work or EICRs.


When other possibilities are eliminated, all that remains is the truth.

Exactly, they should not.

If those are the only two alternatives and no other is possible, then in my mind, exactly as you said.
Both options render them as unfit for purpose.

Reminds me of something a few years back, "Women Empowering Women" or something like that as it was known at the time.
One women made a lot of money and passed her friends into what was not unlike the age old "Chain Letter" scenario.
I think she was a teacher or something.
Some argued she was devious and should have known that those very few higher up made money whilst a very lot of the rest of them lost money.
She and a few supporters claimed she did not know.
It was mentioned she should lose her job for it along with anything else.
Some argued that she couldn`t because she might be "innocent".
I mentioned that no we could not be absolutely certain of guilt or naivety but we could be certain that it was one or the other and both rendered her as unfit to be in her job.
Whether what I mentioned was actually considered is another story though.

This case is similar - should not be trusted, whichever of those two option applies.

 

[Murdochcat]

So by giving a C1 code the inspector should have , IMHO , fixed the problem before leaving the site AND if they had half a brain they would have realised that zero new parts were required AND a simple swap of cables was required.

This is very smelly

 

[JohnW2]

So by giving a C1 code the inspector should have , IMHO , fixed the problem before leaving the site AND if they had half a brain they would have realised that zero new parts were required AND a simple swap of cables was required.

All true.

This is very smelly

Certainly very odd - but the facts regarding 'what has happened' are clear enough.

 

[SUNRAY]

Exactly, they should not.

If those are the only two alternatives and no other is possible, then in my mind, exactly as you said.
Both options render them as unfit for purpose.

Reminds me of something a few years back, "Women Empowering Women" or something like that as it was known at the time.
One women made a lot of money and passed her friends into what was not unlike the age old "Chain Letter" scenario.
I think she was a teacher or something.
Some argued she was devious and should have known that those very few higher up made money whilst a very lot of the rest of them lost money.
She and a few supporters claimed she did not know.
It was mentioned she should lose her job for it along with anything else.
Some argued that she couldn`t because she might be "innocent".
I mentioned that no we could not be absolutely certain of guilt or naivety but we could be certain that it was one or the other and both rendered her as unfit to be in her job.
Whether what I mentioned was actually considered is another story though.

This case is similar - should not be trusted, whichever of those two option applies.

I've certainly had the situation myself, such as: I've known everything was working well before I started making some changes in a control panel, after which a contactor had intermittent operation, something that was absolutely nothing to do with me but who's going to believe that? One just has to suck it up & pop a new one in.

I've also been on jobs where changes have ovbiousely been made, but correctly so - to add or remove a facility or perhaps to move a circuit from one split board RCD to the other etc