Precisely.
-
Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.
EICR Faults
- Thread starter jeeves
- Start date
As opposed if not "new" then test as what? i.e. what difference would you apply when testing? I do not understand that, sorry.
Are you perhaps referring to the sample size you think might or might not be relevant perhaps?
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 9,219
- Reaction score
- 6,343
- Country
Interesting...How do you do that?
A new installation you do all your dead testing before switching on but an existing installation is already on, isn't it?
Got to bear in mind that well over 50% of EICRs are not worth the paper they are printed on
I suspect that should be nearer 99%
That's also roughly my understanding, perhaps dramatically so in the case of commercial/industrial installations if what I've been told here is true.
As I wrote in response to Risteard, the problem with such statements is that 'more' and 'less' are reciprocally related - i.e. if A is more than B, then B is less than A. If one advocates "a more thorough inspection at known problem spots" that inevitably implies "a less thorough inspection at spots not known to be problems" - and that worries me, since problems can obviously appear 'out of the blue' in something that was previously fine.
I would say that, regardless of previous inspection results and regardless of what are perceived as "known problem spots", inspection of everything which is inspected should be thorough enough to identify any defects which are present at the time of the inspection - in which case your suggestion of a "more thorough" inspection in some cases would seem unnecessary..
As I keep saying, I personally believe that (in any 'regular inspection' scenario) comparison of current inspection results with historical ones, if available, is not just 'of interest', but is actually important. However, such a comparison is totally unimportant (since it shouldn't be taken into consideration) in terms of writing an EICR. One cannot (should not!) code something as 'a defect', because it is 'heading in that direction' but has not yet gone beyond 'acceptable limits'
As I keep saying, regardless of whether or not there is any paperwork, I believe that an EICR should be conducted and reported as if there were no historical information - since the whole concept of an EICR is to document the condition of the installation at the time of the inspection (regardless of what changes there may have been prior to the inspection).
Once the EICR has been issued, then is the time to compare it with any historical data/information in order to detect and changes (in any direction) which may deserve ongoing 'monitoring'
It is very odd that BS7671 decided to introduce the current definition of "non-compliance", and once can't even 'blame history', since the definition is a pretty new occurrence.
... and, to confuse things even further, most dictionaries define "conform" to mean complY
It's impossible to be sure, given the problem of definitions, but I strongly suspect that such was not their intent. I suspect that their view was that all non-compliances were, 'by definition' (goodness knows which
), also non-conformities, but that non-conformities were only non-compliances if they resulted in danger. In other words, I suspect that they were considering non-compliance to be a subset of non-conformity, such that the non-compliance circle would, in your diagram, be entirely within the non-conformity one ... but who knows, without a crystal ball or psychic powers This is roughly the point I've been making in relation to sight of previous EICRs since the very start - except that, rather than asking "what difference would you apply when testing?", I would ask "what difference would it make to the report you issued?".
If it is being suggested that prior sight of a previous EICR might result in my identifying (and coding) a 'defect' that I would not have identified without having seen the previous EICR, OR that prior sight of a previous EICR might result in my not identifying (hence not coding) a 'defect' that I would have identified (and coded) without having seen the previous EICR, then I think that would be just plain wrong - don't you?
Kind Regards, John
However, as I said earlier in a typical EICR most of the installation only gets a superficial inspection.
IMO if the intrusive inspection of a sample finds a significant number of faults then the electrician should be recommanding to the customer that a 100% intrusive inspection is undertaken.
This raises the question of what, fundamentally is the point of an EICR. Is it to satisfy some external body that the installation is safe? is it to help the customer ensure that their installation is safe, not just right now but over the whole time period between now and the next EICR?
Certainly in other contexts "monitor it" is a common response to the discovery of a problem that is difficult/expensive to fix properly, and is not considered dangerous right now but could become a bigger problem in the future.
Maybe not code it per-se, but quite possibly write it up as an observation and recommend a shorter time until next inspection and/or recommend additional tests or further inspection in an attempt to identify the cause.
Wires don't just suddenly increase in resistance for no reason, if a connection has significantly changed in resistance, then either there have been modifications to the installation, or there is a corrsion issue or bad connection somewhere. It would seem prudent to find that problem *before* it burns up.
There is a question of course of the relationship between the person ordering the EICR and the person conducting it, as to whether the inspector is expected/trusted to "dig deeper" when they find something of concern or just write it up and move on.[/quote]
I think there continues to be a problem with the language which is being used. Given what I wrote (per quote above) and what you "said earlier", taking your words literally would imply that, in a typical EICR, most of the installation will NOT be inspected thoroughly enough to identify defects which are present at the time of the inspection - and I really doubt that it what you actually meant to imply.
As I've said, my view is that if something is to be inspected, it should be inspected as thoroughly if there is no specific reason to suspect a problem as it would be if one did have reason to suspect a problem - simply because it's far from uncommon for defects to arise/develop without any prior suspicion/suggestion of any impending problem.
Indeed, and whilst the latter is clearly the more desirable, the format of an EICR does, rather ironically, not really seem very suitable for that, since there doesn't seem to be any explicit way of recording (let alone 'coding') things which are currently 'compliant' but which raise possible concerns in relation to the future. As you go on to write ....
As above, I'm not sure that one is meant to record uncoded observations in an EICR, let alone suggest recommended 'additional tests or further inspection'. That can (and should) all be done 'informally', separate from the EICR (as formulated) but I'm not sure that it can/should be included in the EICR?
Last edited:
By "superficial inspection", I mean an inspection of what can be seen without dismantling. By "intrusive inspection" I mean an inspection that requires removal of covers, pulling accessories away from their boxes and similar actions.
Some defects are obvious enough that even a superficial inspection will pick them up. For example if an accessory shows signs of heat or mechanical damage. Some defects will be detected by the tests, for example if there is no continuity or if a resistance is way too high. Some defects will be detected as a side effect of the dismantling required to use test equipment.
But other defects will only be discovered if they occur in the sample of the installation selected for more intrusive inspection. Missing earth link wires from accessories to boxes (where required). Terminals that are loose but happen to be making good enough electrical contact at the time things are tested. Poorly terminated wires that are dangerously close to touching but aren't actually touching right now. Concealed cables where too much of the sheath was strippped. The list goes on.
And some defects will only be found if someone happens upon them. I've seen pictures several times where rodents have removed cable insulation while somehow managing to avoid causing short circuits.
You seem to have seen and replied to my half-written post which got posted prematurely before I deleted it, but it has now been replaced with the full version
).
However, again, no amount of studying of countless previous EICRs would have helped you to find that 'problem'!
OK - but what sort of defects which can only be seen with dismantling are you thinking of that one might go looking for on the basis of a previous inspection report?
It might be my infamous picture which you have seen several times - although it is clear in this case why this hadn't resulted in a 'short circuit' (or even affected IR), and nor had it apparently killed the culprit (no skeletons in the vicinity
).However, again, no amount of studying of countless previous EICRs would have helped you to find that 'problem'!
Agreed,
In my own view 100% I & T should ideally be the norm.
However, there are circumstances where it might be acceptable to do a percentage providing a sensible scheme of such is developed ongoing, otherwise the nearest convenient things can tend to be done more often and the less so tend to be left out, sometimes completely.
If we do not give reasonable thought to the process we can end up with something that is not much better than nothing at all.
The Mark One Eyeball is probably the most important tool and the initial walk around the installation to give first clues, you might then suspect how the installation has progressed in its life, what was done initially, then added to or altered by others and you might get a clue to that from the customer but you might decide to ignore that if you doubt how reliable their memory/understanding is.
Differing styles and choice of materials might yield some clues and then you might further visualise the "groups" suspected.
It might even bias you into any percentages being raised but never lowered.
Percentages can be useful but only if applied properly but 100% is always the best if possible.
Last edited:
In Utopia, that would obviously be true of almost any 'inspection' (and/or 'testing') process, but practicalities often/usually preclude that. In any event, even if one is "aiming for 100%" one really has to make a decision about what "100% I&T" actually means - in your statement above, I'm sure that you did not literally mean 100% - because that would involve lifting countless floorboards and taking a hammer and chisel (or equivalent) to many walls (and maybe spades, or worse,in the garden!)
Agreed, and I've been told (is it true?) that it's often only a fairly small proportion of a commercial/industrial installation that s sampled for inspection. If only a sample of the installation is selected for I&T, then a sensible plan is to escalate that to something more(ultimately to as close to 100% as is practicable) if a significant number of problems/defects are found in the sample.
In terms of domestic (and probably also 'light commercial') installations, I very much doubt that many inspectors would look inside every accessory or light fitting etc. but I do think it makes sense to undertake at least some 'basic tests' of each and every final circuit (something which I've been told is not necessarily the case with commercial/industrial).
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
