EICR - does it cover me?

[JohnW2]

Just to (hopefully) clarify this, we are not being asked to carry out a statistical analysis to determine what and how much of the installation to sample. ... We inspect the installation and examine records of installation work and previous inspections. We then apply our experience to decide whether or not a sample is acceptable.

Well, for what it's worth (** but subject to my next comment below), I would say that you (or someone) probably should be asked to examine the statistical adequacy of any sampling that is utilised. You are effectively using your experience to second guess what a proper statistical examination would determine, and you may or may not get the same answer.

Eric has correctly pointed out that a number of consecutive inspections will cover the full installation.

** As I said to eric, that is potentially fine. If, for example, EICRs are undertaken every year and the selection of circuits to examine on each occasion is organised such that, say, every circuit will be examined within any 5-year period, then, if a 5-year interval between I&T is considered adequate, then that would obviously be fine.

However, that's different from what you appeared to be saying. I thought you said that if no work had been undertaken on a particular circuit since it had undergone prior inspection and testing (with satisfactory results), then it did not need to be looked at in the current EICR. If that were the case, a circuit which never had any work done on it could go uninspected for decades. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I'm confused now. After querying whether we have the capability to read records and visually inspect an installation, you now state that (based on your experience) that EICRS in general are of little benefit.

I'm also a bit confused. I didn't query your "capability to read records and visually inspect an installation", but merely pointed out that the practice you appeared to be describing could miss 'unexpected and unpredictable' spontaneous faults, and nor did I say anything about my experience of EICRs (which is zero, unless you count 'informal' examinations of electrical installations). For what it's worth, what I have a lot of experience of is sampling.

What I was saying was essentially that 'if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing properly'. There could, as I implied, be discussion about to the extent to which EICRs prevent deaths and serious injuries (which are already extremely rare events). However, since we have decided that they are worthwhile (presumably to reduce those deaths and injuries), it would seem a little surprising if the procedures did not seek to prevent injuries/deaths due to causes which, on the basis of electricians' experience, were judged to be unlikely to occur.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

I posted a (what I thought to be) an innocuous post pointing out a real world difference between domestic and non domestic I&T. There are instances where circuits can develop faults but the vast majority of these faults result from changes. In real life, most faults are picked up in daily use, not during I&T. Of the approach was flawed, we would expect to hear of many injuries or property damages caused by fixed wiring than we hear about now.

 

[JohnW2]

I posted a (what I thought to be) an innocuous post pointing out a real world difference between domestic and non domestic I&T.

You did - and, in turn, I merely reported (again, I thought innocuously) what you had told me (without naming you). It was you who chose to revive the discussion about it - I have no problem with that, but it wasn't of my doing.

There are instances where circuits can develop faults but the vast majority of these faults result from changes. In real life, most faults are picked up in daily use, not during I&T. Of the approach was flawed, we would expect to hear of many injuries or property damages caused by fixed wiring than we hear about now.

That's much the same as I recently wrote. As you say, most faults are picked up in daily use, because a consequential malfunction of the installation, the injury or death of someone or a fire will often happen long before the next I&T is due. That is why I said that I wouldn't be surprised if the number of deaths/injuries (and the same goes for fires) would not be much higher if we didn't do EICRs at all. However, as I also said, we've nevertheless decided that it is worth doing EICRs, just in case they prevent the occasional injury/death - and is why I felt that, if they are to be done, it might make sense to do them 'fully'. Returning to your points ...

I posted a ... post pointing out a real world difference between domestic and non domestic I&T. ..... the vast majority of these faults result from changes ...

... I'm a bit confused. You said that the main reason for the different approaches to domestic and non-domestic I&T was that DIY changes were much more likely to occur in the domestic setting - and that argument made good sense to me. However, you are now saying that the vast majority of faults (I presume you mean in non-domestic, as well as domestic, premises) are due to changes (presumably mainly undertaken by professional electricians in the non-domestic premises) - and that rather makes one wonder about the argument.

Kind Regards, John

 

[scousespark]

You did - and, in turn, I merely reported (again, I thought innocuously) what you had told me (without naming you). It was you who chose to revive the discussion about it - I have no problem with that, but it wasn't of my doing.
That's much the same as I recently wrote. As you say, most faults are picked up in daily use, because a consequential malfunction of the installation, the injury or death of someone or a fire will often happen long before the next I&T is due. That is why I said that I wouldn't be surprised if the number of deaths/injuries (and the same goes for fires) would not be much higher if we didn't do EICRs at all. However, as I also said, we've nevertheless decided that it is worth doing EICRs, just in case they prevent the occasional injury/death - and is why I felt that, if they are to be done, it might make sense to do them 'fully'. Returning to your points ...
... I'm a bit confused. You said that the main reason for the different approaches to domestic and non-domestic I&T was that DIY changes were much more likely to occur in the domestic setting - and that argument made good sense to me. However, you are now saying that the vast majority of faults (I presume you mean in non-domestic, as well as domestic, premises) are due to changes (presumably mainly undertaken by professional electricians in the non-domestic premises) - and that rather makes one wonder about the argument.

Kind Regards, John

I only joined this thread because, without naming me, you referred to my other post.
Who is the 'we' that you refer to as decided it is worth carrying out an EICR? I do them as they are part of my job.
In my experience (domestic and commercial) I have found faults in both. When a fault is found when sampling, I follow the guidance and expand the sample (sometimes up to 100%).

I can't see the point in any further posts, so I'm done now. You can post the last word.

 

[JohnW2]

I only joined this thread because, without naming me, you referred to my other post.

Fair enough, albeit there was not really any relevant (discussion) thread to join - there was absolutely no related discussion (about you or what I reported you as having said) after I referred to you, and there was more than a week of that 'no discussion' before you decided to 'join'

Who is the 'we' that you refer to as decided it is worth carrying out an EICR?

I don't know who was the prime mover, but EICRs are done (and PIRs before them), there are recommendations regarding their frequency, and various people have interest in, or requirements for, them to be done - I suppose that the IET/BSI, HSE, insurers, local authorities and probably many others are part of that melting pot.

In my experience (domestic and commercial) I have found faults in both. When a fault is found when sampling, I follow the guidance and expand the sample (sometimes up to 100%).

That's fair enough, when faults are found in a sample inspection. The problem arises when sampling (particularly statistically inadequate sampling) fails to detect any faults despite some being present in the installation as a whole. That risk obviously exists with any sample inspection, but if the sampling is statistically designed, one can at least approximately quantify the risk of the sample inspection missing a fault (and then decide whether that degree of risk is acceptable).

I can't see the point in any further posts, so I'm done now. You can post the last word.

As I have said, it was you who resurrected the discussion about the scope of commercial EICRs - so, in some senses, you've already had the last word. Had you not 'joined in', I would have had no reason to say anything further about the matter.

Kind Regards, John