EICR Certification Following Initial Failure

[JohnW2]

This thread has somewhat proved that apparently there is no official correct way of doing this and therefore it is open to interpretation to the individual.

Indeed so, and that becomes very 'unsatisfactory' in relation to the assessment/'coding' of things on an EICR in the first place if (as now is the case with rented properties) the difference between 'pass' and 'fail' can have very significant financial consequences for the property owner. In particular, if something is not fully compliant/conformant with the current regulations, the difference between C2 ('fail') and C£ ('pass') is essentially down to the inspector's judgement/opinion as to whether or not it constitutes 'a potential danger' which requires urgent action.

There will always be some areas that do require such individual judgement, but they could be minimised. Continuing my MOT analogy, things like surface corrosion on brake pipes and the state of side walls of tyres can come into that category.

Based on the helpful feedback received here we have decide that as a company we will make it our own rule that in cases of failed EICR's we will send the failed certificate to our customer along with a quotation to rectify remedials and this quotation will now always include a installation certificate that will be produced once remedials are completed that can then be sent to the customer to be used in conjunction with the already submitted failed EICR certificate. This way our customers have a tangible document that shows the required works have been completed. .... Obviously we now know that this is not necessarily a legal requirement, but we have decided that it is good practice and will implement it ourselves.

Until the recent ('private rental sector') legislation appeared there were (in England) no 'legal requirements' relating to EICRs. Even with the new legislation, it appears that (contrary to the situation with MOT certificates) what you describe is (legally) acceptable.

However, there have always been people who, for whatever reason, want/need a 'clean' ('pass') EICR after necessary remedial work it undertaken - i.e. a 'fail' EICR plus evidence that the reasons for the failure have been remedied is 'not enough' for them (even though it is enough to satisfy the PRS legislation).

As I recently wrote/implied, if the person/company issuing the 'fail' certificate then ('soon after') does the remedial work (and issues an EIC for it), very little additional effort is required in order for them to then provide a 'pass' EICR - since they do not need to re-inspect the things which they 'passed' a few days earlier. The only effort required is therefore that associated with 'producing the bit of paper'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I agree with @JohnW2 what we need is a time limit like with an MOT which says if the remedial work is done within x days then only the remedial work needs retesting. But that does not exist, an EICR can report a defect which is corrected a year latter, and the landlord does not have to wait 5 years before a retest.

Following the general HSE requirements one can have a contentious testing system where each x months a x percentage of the whole installation is tested. So over a 5 year period all is tested. This it seems is also allowed with new law, using the LIM option, so each test is limited to a set amount, which over a 5 year period includes all.

However this is rather open, and hard to quantify.

So we return to the standard EICR is not really designed for what the new law wants.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with @JohnW2 what we need is a time limit like with an MOT which says if the remedial work is done within x days then only the remedial work needs retesting. But that does not exist, an EICR can report a defect which is corrected a year latter, and the landlord does not have to wait 5 years before a retest.

The law is only relevant in relation to the PRS legislation and, as far as I can make out, that says (or requires) nothing in relation to re-testing of things that have 'passed' (no worse than C3) the initial ('failed') EICR, nor any requirement for any further EICR. It appears that all that is required is the 'failed' EICR and confirmation that the required remedial work has been undertaken within 28 days of the date of that EICR - which sounds like what you are asking for (in analogy with MOTs), with x = 28.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

I'm sorry @JohnW2 but what you state is incorrect. Although you may have inspected something recently, and it may have been fine, that does not mean that it remains so. Therefore remedial works should never result in a re-issuing of the report with the word "unsatisfactory" substituted for "satisfactory". The certification for the works will prove that the remedial works were done, and if the contractor is a member of the ECA then the ECA have a Post EICR Assessment Completion Form for this purpose - but this is by no means required.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sorry ...

I bet you're not!

... @JohnW2 but what you state is incorrect. Although you may have inspected something recently, and it may have been fine, that does not mean that it remains so.

Very true (as it is of MOT tests) and, in fact, inevitably true by the time one hands the certificate to the installation's owner - minutes. hours or days after the inspection has been undertaken. Furthermore, as I said, I am aware of nothing which requires that all of the I&T required to produces an IECR has to be completed on the same day - further increasing the potential interval between undertaking some aspects of the inspection and providing the corresponding report.

One imagines and hopes that common sense will prevail, and that most people involved would take the same attitude/approach to IECRs as English law does for MOT Certificates - namely, that if following the issuing of a 'fail' certificate, remedial work is undertaken within a (fairly short) period of time, then a 'pass' certificate can be issued without the need to re-inspect things that 'passed' one's inspection 'a day or five' earlier.

 

[Adam_151]

I agree with others that an existing EICR should not be amended to sastifactory as a paperwork excerise with no testing carried out, the docuement has been issued to repflect the condition at that time, issuing under a new number as satsifactory is not really the done thing as it implies it has all been re inspected when it has not.

Certs for the work done, along with a covering letter on headed paper "We have repaired items x, y and z to 123-EICR to a satsifactory standard, this letter and accomonying certificates can be stored witbh the original EICR and the installation can be read to have been assessed as stastifactory on the date it was inspected, as all the issues present at the time, presenting such an outcome have subsequently been rectified"

 

[ericmark]

(5) Where paragraph (4) applies, a private landlord must—
(a)obtain written confirmation from a qualified person that the further investigative or remedial work has been carried out and that—
(i)the electrical safety standards are met; or
(ii)further investigative or remedial work is required;
(b)supply that written confirmation, together with a copy of the report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) which required the further investigative or remedial work to each existing tenant of the residential premises within 28 days of completion of the further investigative or remedial work; and
(c)supply that written confirmation, together with a copy of the report under sub-paragraph (3)(a) which required the further investigative or remedial work to the local housing authority within 28 days of completion of the further investigative or remedial work.

Paragraph 4 says it failed.

“qualified person” means a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) and any further investigative or remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards;

This seems to say the person inspecting and testing must be able to do the remedial work, and also the person doing the remedial work must also be able to inspect and test. As to how much the council would insist on that I don't know? But one has to carefully look as "and" and "or" the lack of any punctuation does not help. So does a “qualified person” means a person competent to undertake remedial work in accordance with the electrical safety standards? So we could be looking at two qualified persons, one who does testing and one who does remedial work, and in real terms the latter seems more reasonable. If the inspector sees a fault with the DNO side of the supply, he can't do the remedial work, but

“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter;

so the inspector should not be inspecting the DNO equipment anyway. But he should be reading that inspecting the connections inside the boiler, which also raises questions, about removing boiler covers when not Gas Safe.

I think the phrase is "let the courts decide", but in the mean while we do what we think is reasonable, so what skill does it require to fit this

distribution unit blanks to my mind should be fitted by the inspector, and should not normally be put on any report, same as correcting fuse size in plugs when PAT testing, however should he run out, and have to enter it on the report, to my mind a receipt for buying blanks should be good enough. I am not sure if those shown do need the front of the consumer unit to be removed, or if simply press into place, but a photo of blanks in place is enough, writing out a Minor Works for fitting blanks is going OTT.

But of course a landlord could buy the blanks and not fit them, or copy the receipt and attach it the the EICR for many properties, but he could also remove them after a photograph is taken or retest done, so how far do you take it?

check if the inspector is a member of a competent person scheme; or
require the inspector to sign a checklist certifying their competence, including their experience, whether they have adequate insurance and hold a qualification covering the current version of the Wiring Regulations and the periodic inspection, testing and certification of electrical installations.

I am not sure if simply being a member of a competent person scheme is really good enough, as there are schemes for doing just selected work, and there is nothing in the law saying they must hold a qualification covering the current version of the Wiring Regulations and the periodic inspection, testing and certification of electrical installations it only says they need to be a qualified person.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think you are all splitting hairs.

I agree with others that an existing EICR should not be amended to sastifactory as a paperwork excerise with no testing carried out, the docuement has been issued to repflect the condition at that time, issuing under a new number as satsifactory is not really the done thing as it implies it has all been re inspected when it has not.

What about using the same number (if that is important) and the original date and withdrawing the first certificate which could, in any case, have taken a day or two to issue and be received?


What about, if you are the regular trusted electrician doing the 'remedial work' as you progress through the inspection?

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with others that an existing EICR should not be amended to sastifactory as a paperwork excerise with no testing carried out, the docuement has been issued to repflect the condition at that time, issuing under a new number as satsifactory is not really the done thing as it implies it has all been re inspected when it has not.

As I've said, that view appears to lack common sense.

As I've often mentioned, I see a lot of EICRs being done (on refurbished properties) for a family member, and I've just looked back over the records. Just a few months ago, there was an occasion on which the I&T could not quite be completed on the day it started, because the inspector was unable to get access to one small part of the property. Due to his other work commitments, it was a few days later that he was able to return to complete the inspection. On that second day, he spent a very short amount of time inspecting the outstanding things, and he then issued a ('pass') EICR bearing that second date - and there is nothing about the report which looks any different from what it would have looked like had he undertaken the entire inspection on that second day.

Are you seriously suggesting that he should have repeated the entire inspection on the second occasion?

As I've said, lacking in common sense though it often is, English law is sensible about this in the analogous situation with MOT tests. The rules/laws explicitly say that if, following the issuing of a 'fail' MOT certificate (which cannot be 'withdrawn'), a re-test (after remedial work) at the same test centre within 10 days (of the date of the 'fail' certificate) needs to only be a 'partial one', requiring re-inspection of only those items which previously failed, and that a new ('pass') certificate is then issued.

That happened with my wife's car a few weeks ago. It was returned for remedial work and 're-testing' a couple of days after the 'failed' test. On their invoice, the "partial re-test fee" was recorded as £0.00 and, having just looked at it, the 'pass' certificate bears the date of the re-test and bears absolutely no reference to the fact that only a 'partial re-test' had been undertaken on that day and that the majority of the inspection had been undertaken a few days earlier.

Certs for the work done, along with a covering letter on headed paper "We have repaired items x, y and z to 123-EICR to a satsifactory standard, this letter and accomonying certificates can be stored witbh the original EICR and the installation can be read to have been assessed as stastifactory on the date it was inspected, as all the issues present at the time, presenting such an outcome have subsequently been rectified"

As I've said, although that would seemingly be adequate to satisfy the PRS legislation, there are a good few people who (for various reasons) want/need to have a 'pass EICR', not a 'fail one' plus evidence that the reasons for failure had been remedied.

Returning yet again to the MOT analogy, one could not 'get away with' the equivalent of what you are suggesting - neither DVLA nor the police would be impressed with your claim that your vehicle was 'legal', even though it didn't have a current 'MOT pass certificate', because you had a 'fail' certificate plus evidence that the defects had been remedied.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I know when we did the EICR on the batching plant at work it took 3 electricians two Sundays to do it, it included things like testing opening a gate stopped the machine, but point is there must be homes where an inspector takes more than one day, and the paper work would show date completed not start date.

I can see the argument on if it should or should not show items corrected during the inspection, I know when I take my car for MOT bulbs if required are replaced normally FOC and it does not show as a fail. But with a car MOT you are required to have it retested once a fail certificate is issued, but that is not required with an EICR, I gave the quote "obtain written confirmation from a qualified person that the further investigative or remedial work has been carried out" what does seem not so plain is what is a qualified person when it comes to remedial work?

As I said it seems daft that an electrician is required to push some blanks into place.

 

[JohnW2]

I know when we did the EICR on the batching plant at work it took 3 electricians two Sundays to do it, it included things like testing opening a gate stopped the machine, but point is there must be homes where an inspector takes more than one day, and the paper work would show date completed not start date.

Agreed, but some people here seem to think that such an EICR would 'not be valid' because some of the items which 'passed' will have been inspected prior to the date on the report. In cases such as you and I have mentioned that's surely just plain daft, isn't it?

... I can see the argument on if it should or should not show items corrected during the inspection, I know when I take my car for MOT bulbs if required are replaced normally FOC and it does not show as a fail.

Quite. If defects were once present, I really don't see what difference it makes whether they were remedied before or during 'the period of the EICR inspection' (whether that be one day or spread over a number of days), provided that the defect had gone away, hence the item had 'passed', by the time the EICR was 'written' and issued.

But with a car MOT you are required to have it retested once a fail certificate is issued, but that is not required with an EICR ...

Not required by the PRS legislation, I agree - but, as I have said, sometimes required by third parties (e.g. insurers) - i.e. those whose contracts/whatever require that they be provided with a 'pass EICR', not just a 'fail' one together with evidence that defects have been remedied subsequent to the date of the ('fail') EICR.

Kind Regards, John

 

[denso13]

which also raises questions, about removing boiler covers when not Gas Safe.

Would you expect an electrician to disconnect and remove a gas fire to check the electrics of a fireplace back boiler?

 

[ericmark]

Would you expect an electrician to disconnect and remove a gas fire to check the electrics of a fireplace back boiler?

No however the way the law is worded it does not allow the splitting of the inspection between qualified people, I think the law is wrong, and like when it says "“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter;" so the inspector is not required to inspect the DNO equipment (Although the IET paperwork does include the inspection) the definitions for "electrical installation" should exclude anything which would normally come under PAT testing or (the inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment) but in many places where I have worked there has been a problem where both the guy doing PAT testing and the guy doing the EICR have missed out some thing.

In some cases there was good reason, the drinks machine was listed on the equipment register but it simply said under service contract to xyz drinks.

We are allowed to use the code LIM and I would say that could likely be used with anything under a service contract, be it a built in fridge, freezer, shower, immersion heater, boiler, hand drier, or washing machine and still follow the IET guide, but the big question is does that follow the law? I know the HSE would accept a service and maintenance contract, however I have seen some firms and how they work, basic idea is the home owner pays annual sum and if the system fails, they will send some one out to repair it, it gets an inspection before contract starts, but once running often only visit if it fails, and they don't provide what I would think acceptable as a written report on the condition of the equipment.

What we are talking about is not what you or I feel is right, but what the law says must be done, so if when you come to a boiler or fire it says on the item only gas safe or corgi as we know that was the system years ago, should work on this equipment then clearly we have a darn good reason not to touch, but only authorised people means nothing, we are authorised to inspect and test. Yes I think it is wrong, I do not want to play with boiler, or freezer, to my mind that is specialist equipment but I did not write the law.

 

[ericmark]

Not required by the PRS legislation, I agree - but, as I have said, sometimes required by third parties (e.g. insurers) - i.e. those whose contracts/whatever require that they be provided with a 'pass EICR', not just a 'fail' one together with evidence that defects have been remedied subsequent to the date of the ('fail') EICR.

Be it required by letting agent, insurers, or any other organisation then that is up to them, I have been told by the LABC inspector he wanted an EICR doing by some one on his approved list, and he would engage them and instruct them, but I would need to pay, I was able to get him to change his mind, however had he not changed his mind, there was nothing I could have really done.

But we are in essence talking about what the law requires, the insurance company could like the LABC say the inspection must be done by one of these companies, and we have two options, do what they say, or change insurance company.

 

[JohnW2]

Be it required by letting agent, insurers, or any other organisation then that is up to them ...

Indeed so - I was merely making the point that there are some people who do require a 'clean' ('pass') EICR - and that it is my view (per the analogy with MOTs) totally reasonable for a new ('pass') EICR to be issued (by the same person) after completing the required remedial work (fairly soon after the initial inspection) on the basis of re-inspection of ONLY those items which had previously failed (and subsequently remedied). However, some here seem to think that such is not acceptable.

But we are in essence talking about what the law requires, the insurance company could like the LABC say the inspection must be done by one of these companies, and we have two options, do what they say, or change insurance company.

As above, if everyone is sensible, then issuing a new ('pass') EICR, on the basis of 're-inspection' of just those things which have been remedied (which has to be done for the EIC, anyway) involves almost no additional time, effort or cost, and should keep everyone happy (other than those here who feel that it is not an acceptable approach!).

Kind Regards, John