EICR Faults

[ericmark]

How do you come to that conclusion ?

The whole idea is to detect any deterioration in the installation, can't do that without viewing the previous EICR. Remember the EICR is not limited to domestic, and with industrial I was always given the last inspection.

 

[JohnW2]

The whole idea is to detect any deterioration in the installation, can't do that without viewing the previous EICR. Remember the EICR is not limited to domestic, and with industrial I was always given the last inspection.

The "C" of "EICR" means Condition, not Change. It is a report on the condition of an electrical installation at the time of an inspection, regardless of whether that condition is better, the same or worse than it was at the time of a previous inspection.

I agree that there could, in some situations, well be interest in observing changes over time, but that would have to be looked at separately from, and in addition to, having an EICR undertaken, since the only interest of an EICR is in whether or not the installation is 'satisfactory' at the time of the inspection.

 

[morqthana]

Did you recently note that one of Napit's recommendations disagreed with one of ESF's?

Then they have no business being members.

 

[morqthana]

I suppose one can debate whether a statement that something "may be useful" constitutes "giving a seal of approval".

So on a Government website they describe as useful something of which they do not approve.

OK.

In a subsequent post, you give a list of many of the organisations which have "agreed on the guidance", and since that guidance encompasses countless different issues, I cannot believe that every one of those organisation actually agrees unreservedly with every point of detail in the guidance

I can, or they have no business allowing their name to be used.

 

[Murdochcat]

The "C" of "EICR" means Condition, not Change. It is a report on the condition of an electrical installation at the time of an inspection, regardless of whether that condition is better, the same or worse than it was at the time of a previous inspection.

I agree that there could, in some situations, well be interest in observing changes over time, but that would have to be looked at separately from, and in addition to, having an EICR undertaken, since the only interest of an EICR is in whether or not the installation is 'satisfactory' at the time of the inspection.

I’m going to disagree with you.

When i do repeat EICRs i take the previous report AND my notes / from the last visit

Changes are then noted and much variance from the original need looking at.

A while back i was given an EICR to cover off the C2’s noted by the “original” inspector. What i found was nearly every figure was different to those on the “unsatisfactory “ EICR. Odd? Incompetent inspector? Rushed inspection? Made up report? - without seeing the report i would have been none the wiser

AND in the case of lower IR numbers, how would you know if things have changed?

 

[JohnW2]

I’m going to disagree with you. .... When i do repeat EICRs i take the previous report AND my notes / from the last visit ... Changes are then noted and much variance from the original need looking at.

You are only partially disagreeing with me, since I acknowledged that looking at changes in aspects of an electrical installation over time can be useful, and may help to identify things which may require investigation or, at least careful monitoring the the future.

However, as I also said that is not, and should not be, what an EICR is about. An EICR is a report on the condition of an installation at the time of the inspection, regardless of the condition of the installation at any other point in time.

Are you really suggesting that when you undertake an EICR having seen previous ones for the installation, your report may be different (in terms of coding, hence potentially satisfactory/unsatisfactory overall) than it would have been had you not seen any previous reports?

It goes without saying that if you do have previous reports to look at, and notice possibly relevant changes that have been occurring, then one hopes that you would bring that information to the attention of the owner of the installation, but that is separate from the EICR itself, which I would not expect to have been influenced by anything in the past.

 

[JohnW2]

So on a Government website they describe as useful something of which they do not approve. OK. .... I can, or they have no business allowing their name to be used.

I presume that you live in the same real world that I do.

As I said, when there are countless individual items of guidance, it is unrealistic to believe that every organisation (and indeed, every individual within those organisations) will unreservedly approve of the detail if every single one of them - so the best they are likely to be able to do is to indicate 'general approval', hence indicating that there be some individual items of guidance that they do not agree with.

It's like politics, where there are, again, countless issues. When one votes for a particular party in an election, one does so on the basis of 'generally approving' the contents of that party's manifesto, but I sure that very many of those voters will disagree with at least some of the things in the manifesto (which they 'generally approved') of the party they voted for.

Such is 'complex life'! If there were just one bit of guidance in a document, or just one issue mentioned in a manifesto, then life would be so much simpler

 

[ericmark]

What i found was nearly every figure was different to those on the “unsatisfactory “ EICR.

I remember a heated debate on this. The 100 amp supply needs a line - neutral loop impedance of around 0.35Ω to stay within the volt drop requirements, and often properties are supplied by a ring (not a ring final) so that sections can be isolated to allow work to be done. So the loop impedance when both legs of the ring are in use, can be well below 0.35Ω. I have seem a 0.25Ω reading.

So if the loop impedance at a socket is 1.38Ω when the incoming is 0.25Ω, then if a part is isolated for work to be done, then the socket may have a loop impedance of 1.48Ω.

The other is meter accuracy, we a few years ago had a discussion about volt drop, which can be measured using the difference between incoming loop impedance, and the loop impedance at the appliance. We were looking at the 106 meters quoted as the maximum for a ring final. The worry was if one did not measure the volt drop, and if it was measured latter, could the client claim as you had not raised the fault at the time, so he could no longer claim from the installer?

After making a java script program to work it out however, it was realised test the loop impedance three times, and one can get three different readings, maybe only 0.02Ω from correct reading, but one is measuring twice to work out volt drop, so that can be 0.04Ω so in real terms the volt drop would need to be really OTT before one could say this does not comply.

The same with the 1.38Ω for a B32 MCB/RCBO. The reason moved from 1.44Ω was to allow for volt drop, and a type B is 3 - 5 times, but we calculate on 5 times, so if we look at the previous EICR or EIC and we see all readings are high/low to our own, we can assume volts were higher or lower when measured, but if only one circuit, then alarm bells ring.

My old house I would see 245 volt most times measured, then a whole load of homes had solar panels, and the volts dropped to around the 235 volt mark, may not have had anything to do with solar panels, but was around the same time, so all there readings for homes in the estate would have changed at the same time. Yes I know the meter should correct to voltage measured, but I had a Siemens meter, and the PSCC and loop impedance for same circuit always had 240 volt when compared using ohms law, so that meter was clearly designed for 240 volt.

Never seen 250 volt in this house, but never far below it, 248.7 at the moment looking at solar software.

 

[Risteard]

How do you come to that conclusion ?
One reason for not giving out the previous report is to prevent "copy & paste" testing.
And adding "something" does not automatically mean the installation (I assume that's what you mean by "it") has to comply with current regs - that depends on what was added.

Pervious reports should always be supplied and reviewed where they are available.

 

[Murdochcat]

Pervious reports should always be supplied and reviewed where they are available.

Hit, nail and head springs to mind and IIRC there is a tick box on the sample found asking if the previous report is available.

History of EICRs is important - seemingly some people on here think otherwise but as they aren’t practicing sparks in not convinced that their blinkered view is valid at all

 

[Risteard]

Hit, nail and head springs to mind and IIRC there is a tick box on the sample found asking if the previous report is available.

History of EICRs is important - seemingly some people on here think otherwise but as they aren’t practicing sparks in not convinced that their blinkered view is valid at all

Indeed. It's difficult to quanitfy deterioration without any previous data. (Or even get an idea whether any remedial work was carried out to address previously identified issues, or whether additions or alterations have been made.)

Sadly in the majority of cases previous certificates and/or reports are unavailable, but I always ask for them in advance.

I am very confident that IET guidance states that they should be reviewed (where possible).

 

[JohnW2]

History of EICRs is important - seemingly some people on here think otherwise but as they aren’t practicing sparks in not convinced that their blinkered view is valid at all

Indeed. It's difficult to quanitfy deterioration without any previous data. (Or even get an idea whether any remedial work was carried out to address previously identified issues, or whether additions or alterations have been made.)

I thought I had been fairly clear, but there seems to have been some misunderstandings about what I have written.

I have agreed that the history EICRs (or, more generally, history of the installation) is important and that it can allow deterioration and the rate of deterioration to be assessed.

However, I still believe that an EICR should only document the condition of an installation (including whether it is satisfactory or unsatisfactory) at the time of the inspection, regardless of anything to do with previous points in time. I therefore believe that an inspector should complete his/her inspection and issue a written EICR before having sight of previous EICRs (or any other 'historical' information) - which they can then compare with current findings and, where necessary, bring any relevant changes over time to the attention of the owner of the installation - separately from the (already issued) EICR.

Just as juries are not allowed to know of a defendant's criminal history until after they have reached a verdict, in some fields I've worked in it has been essentially been 'forbidden' ('wherever possible'!) for an inspector to see any previous inspection results until after they have completed their current inspection and provided their report.

There are several reasons why I believe it is undesirable for inspectors to see previous reports (or other historical information) before they have completed and documented their assessment of the condition of the installation 'as it is now', including, for starters:

As has previously been mentioned, the really black sheep will do little I&T but will merely copy stuff (including test results) from the previous report.​

​

The inspector may be biased, maybe unconsciously, by alleged defects that have been reported in the past, even though, were it not for that information, their opinion would have been that there was no defect to report.​

​

The inspector's judgement can (gain, perhaps subconsciously) be biased by the judgment of a previous inspector, even if the installation has remained in the same condition. In other words, in the absence of past information an inspector might feel that something was 'not bad enough' to warrant coding (or a particular code) but when he's seen that a previous inspector did code it (or give a particular code) may decide "if that's what he/she did, maybe I should do the same".​

​

There is probably a temptation, yet again perhaps subconscious, to 'code' something which has 'deteriorated' since the last inspection as a defect, even if the present condition does not, in itself, warrant coding as a defect.​

​

I am very confident that IET guidance states that they should be reviewed (where possible).[/SIZE]

Indeed so - but it's not really just "IET guidance", since it's what BS7671 actually says.

 

[ebee]

"History of EICRs is important - seemingly some people on here think otherwise but as they aren’t practicing sparks in not convinced that their blinkered view is valid at all."
That is a rather silly statement - pot kettle black IMHO. In regard to blinkered view.

"Indeed. It's difficult to quanitfy deterioration without any previous data. (Or even get an idea whether any remedial work was carried out to address previously identified issues, or whether additions or alterations have been made.)."
It is not definitive but might have some merit, I agree.
I do not think John totally disagrees with you on that one either but , I suspect, he might take it into account sometimes, if I have misunderstood John`s meaning though I am sure he will tell us.

I reckon that the rest of what John says is probably a very good understanding of things.

Time and time again I have come across the the apparent belief that if two installations were exactly identical and one of them complied with every regulation at the time it applied and the other one complied with with regulations in force today then the older one could be deemed "Safe" (Satisfactory) and the later one deemed "Unsafe" (Usatisfactory) the no no no, we apply all criteria of what we consider to pass or fail today at the time of inspection, that includes any defects and any codes.
Our perception of what we believe to be safe/unsafe and the extent of that changes over time too, partly because we realise with more inbuilt safety then people tend to take bigger risks than years ago, just like they do with driving a car etc etc.
We never had a common occurrence of piles of dead bodies in the streets years back because people suffered from electric shocks including electrocution or sudden involuntary rapid movement, but sometimes it did happen just like sometimes it does now.
I have been known to defect one of my previous installations purely because of changes in regs.
Indeed quite a few circuits with rewireable fuses and no RCD to be found, did not worry me at the time and complied back then, common practice, but not acceptable today.

Any inspector, should not be biased in any way with previous reports but a previous report should always be made available if possible for comparison and sometimes might give a clue to deteriorations or alterations.
On a few occasions I have returned years later to an installation and noted that unbelievable alterations have been made , disconnecting bonding, bodging of lighting and power circuits for a start, compared to how I left it ten years ago/six moths ago, I could write a book and perhaps call it "Nightmare".
I`m sure some other tradesmen will feel the same too

 

[securespark]

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

 

[JohnW2]

"History of EICRs is important - seemingly some people on here think otherwise but as they aren’t practicing sparks in not convinced that their blinkered view is valid at all."
That is a rather silly statement - pot kettle black IMHO. In regard to blinkered view.

Some people make silly statements, sometimes repeatedly. As you say, in this case it's a bit rich for someone with such fixed views to be accusing others of expressing 'blinkered views'! Furthermore, to be pedantic, if the views f those who are not "practising (spelt correctly!) sparks" are "not valid at all", I thought (but may be wrong) that the person expressing that view is no longer practising as a spark?

"Indeed. It's difficult to quanitfy deterioration without any previous data. (Or even get an idea whether any remedial work was carried out to address previously identified issues, or whether additions or alterations have been made.)."
It is not definitive but might have some merit, I agree.

I would go further than you and say that looking at previous data in order to identify and quantify any deterioration (or improvement!) always has considerable merit - but, as I keep saying, I don't think that should be done until the inspector has completed his/her inspection and issued a report on the current condition of the installation

I do not think John totally disagrees with you on that one either but , I suspect, he might take it into account sometimes, if I have misunderstood John`s meaning though I am sure he will tell us.

As above I don't disagree with the concept at all - I just don't think an inspector should see any other data (or other people's views) about the installation until after he/she has issued a report on the current condition of the installation.

I reckon that the rest of what John says is probably a very good understanding of things.

I'm glad you agree with me.

Time and time again I have come across the the apparent belief that if two installations were exactly identical and one of them complied with every regulation at the time it applied and the other one complied with with regulations in force today then the older one could be deemed "Safe" (Satisfactory) and the later one deemed "Unsafe" (Usatisfactory) the no no no, we apply all criteria of what we consider to pass or fail today at the time of inspection, that includes any defects and any codes.

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

Our perception of what we believe to be safe/unsafe and the extent of that changes over time too ... I have been known to defect one of my previous installations purely because of changes in regs.

Sure, given the changing attitudes of society to risk, which may be reflected in changes in the regs, that will inevitably sometimes happen.

Any inspector, should not be biased in any way with previous reports ...

That's the point I have repeatedly trying to make, and so ...

.... but a previous report should always be made available if possible for comparison and sometimes might give a clue to deteriorations or alterations.

As above, I totally agree - but not until after the inspector has provided his/her report on the current condition of the installation.

Also the 'previous report' may not be very 'previous' at all ... in which case I think that what I've said above becomes even more important. It could be that the 'previous report' was provided yesterday but, because of unhappiness with it, a different inspector was asked to undertake a further, 'second opinion', EICR today. I would suggest that, in that situation, it is even more important that the second inspector should provide his report on the current condition of the installation before being made aware of what "yesterday's inspector" had concluded.

I have often been asked to provide 'second opinion' reports, based on examination of documents, data and information etc. and, to avoid bias (which can so easily be subconscious), information about the 'first opinion' has very rarely been made available to me (unless such is unavoidable) until after I have submitted my report. I would then usually be made aware of the 'first opinion' and, where appropriate, then provide a supplementary report in which I would discuss the difference between the two opinions and, if necessary, explain why I believe the first opinion to be incorrect.

Kind Regards, John