EICR Questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't show it to them then. Unless they ask if you've had the electrics inspected - now that you have you'll have to say so.
Indeed, but even if they did ask (which, as I said, I don't think the standard conveyancing forms do), I don't think it would be appropriate (or even 'legally safe') to hand over this EICR without comment ...

... let's face it, if a seller had reason to believe (on the basis of the opinions of other electricians) that an EICR was incorrect, perhaps even fraudulent, in a manner which was potentially in favour of the seller, then I would think that there would be a legal obligation not to simply hand over that EICR 'without comment'. If that the case when the errors/frauds are potentially in the sellers's favour, I would suspect that the same would probably be true in the converse situation - either way, if one simply 'handed over the EICR' one would be doing something which one had reason to believe could mislead the buyer.
 
Sponsored Links
Would an EICR come under the "Have you had any electrical work carried out since 2005?" necessitating an answer of "Yes"?
 
Indeed, but even if they did ask (which, as I said, I don't think the standard conveyancing forms do)...
It seems that I was at least partially wrong in my recollection, but the version of a TA6 conveyancing form I have to hand has no Yes/No boxes for the question, so it's actually impossible to answer "Yes" :) ...

upload_2019-5-19_12-31-9.png


However, I still remain of the opinion that to simply 'hand over' an EICR which one had good reason to believe was probably incorrect and misleading as regards the state of the electrical installation would not be appropriate (or, necessarily, 'legally safe').

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
Would an EICR come under the "Have you had any electrical work carried out since 2005?" necessitating an answer of "Yes"?
I doubt it - not the least because, as we've discussed before, I think most people probably interpret that question as relating only to notifiable work (since, otherwise, the documents requested on the form would not exist) - and an EICR is certainly not 'notifiable' :)

However, see what I've recently posted.

Kind Regards, John
 
It has come back with 2 issues
Next to impossible that an older installation on a 3 bed house could only have 2 items which don't comply.
'consumer unit needs updating' is not valid without further information as to why and which regulations it doesn't comply with.
A lack of RCDs is either C3 or C2 depending on what they supply. If it's just lighting and a cooker without them, it's C3.

some circuits don’t have an RCD so there could be a neutral to Earth fault so the electricity could come back out and electrocute me
RCDs will trip when N-E faults are present, but it's exceptionally implausible that such faults could cause electrocution.

Doubtful figures on the test results.
500MΩ insulation resistance for every circuit is unlikely on an old installation.
The resistances for the rings are closer to what would be expected for old 2.5/1.0 from the 1970s/1980s, rather than more modern 2.5/1.5 cable. However not really correct for either, so they are either wrong or there are high resistance connections on the CPC for both circuits.
R1+R2 for the rings are unrelated to the r1 and r2 values.
 
Doubtful figures on the test results.
On a quick test I also found the figures don't match, however I have had this myself when testing for what ever reason the figures don't match, and retesting found one was wrong.

As to how to get a replacement certificate there is nothing stopping me testing and inspecting except in Scotland and issuing an EICR I am no longer a member of the IET and I don't belong to any scheme provider so there is no way other than asking me that you could get a replacement certificate.

Even with work that requires registering, I tried to get replacement certificates, I was told we are in the process of moving you will need to wait three months, and the charge is £64 an hour and we don't know how long it will take, lucky I found the original, however it seems the county council is in complete disarray and getting copies of completion certificates is near impossible.

I did a hunt for the energy rating of my house, I actually found one, but it has never been surveyed to find the energy rating!
 
However, I still remain of the opinion that to simply 'hand over' an EICR which one had good reason to believe was probably incorrect and misleading as regards the state of the electrical installation would not be appropriate (or, necessarily, 'legally safe').
How about accepting the opinion of several disinterested people that the report provided was so egregiously flawed that it would be quite justifiable to take the position that it has not been tested and approved?
 
How about accepting the opinion of several disinterested people that the report provided was so egregiously flawed that it would be quite justifiable to take the position that it has not been tested and approved?
Yep, that sounds reasonable. I suppose that someone wanting give give 'full disclosure' could do just that - admit that the inspection has taken place, but that the report had been 'discarded' because several disinterested people had given their opinions that it was seriously flawed and hence misleading.
 
One would hope that NICIEC would be very interested/concerned, but who knows?! Do let us know how they respond!

Yes no problem, I’ll keep everyone updated if / when I get a response from NICEIC. I’d like to hope they would at least ask for a copy of the EICR, but who knows.

However, to be fair, we know nothing about the other finding/recommendation ("bathroom light needs improving"), so don't really know whether that was in any way justified or not.

Out of interest, what was his problem with the bathroom light?

The bathroom light was apparently not IPX4, which is possibly true as it’s most likely the standard light fitted by the council some years ago.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. My understanding of bathroom lighting is that IPX4 or above is required for zones 1 and 2, or higher IPX5 or above is required if jets may be used (which they aren’t in this case). There is no longer a zone 3 and the zone 2 shown around basins by almost all companies selling bathroom lights is mythical, however it may be good practice to consider around a sink as zone 2, even though it’s not.

Above 2.25m high is ‘out of zone’ assuming no fixed shower outlet on the wall or ceiling (which there isn’t) and at 2.45m ceiling height, that makes this light out of zone and therefore it does not need a specific IP rating. However it does need to be ‘suitable for the conditions’ and I would suggest that it is, based on it having been installed problem free for many years with no signs of corrosion or condensation damage.

Having said that, a C3 recommendation to fit an IPX4 light with perhaps the view that IPX4 would ensure it was ‘suitable’ for bathroom use would not seem too unreasonable?

Yep, that sounds reasonable. I suppose that someone wanting give give 'full disclosure' could do just that - admit that the inspection has taken place, but that the report had been 'discarded' because several disinterested people had given their opinions that it was seriously flawed and hence misleading.

Yes, the full disclosure you suggest is probably what I would go with. Although ideally I'd like the money I have already paid to result in a revised and accurate EICR.
 
... admit that the inspection has taken place, but that the report had been 'discarded' because several disinterested people had given their opinions that it was seriously flawed and hence misleading.

... and the fact that the 'inspector' was only on the premises for 30 minutes, so de facto could not have carried out the full required testing procedure.
 
Last edited:
Yes no problem, I’ll keep everyone updated if / when I get a response from NICEIC. I’d like to hope they would at least ask for a copy of the EICR, but who knows.
Thanks.
The bathroom light was apparently not IPX4, which is possibly true as it’s most likely the standard light fitted by the council some years ago. ... Please correct me if I’m wrong. My understanding of bathroom lighting is that IPX4 or above is required for zones 1 and 2, or higher IPX5 or above is required if jets may be used (which they aren’t in this case). There is no longer a zone 3 and the zone 2 shown around basins by almost all companies selling bathroom lights is mythical, however it may be good practice to consider around a sink as zone 2, even though it’s not.
Indeed. You seem to be very well informed.
Above 2.25m high is ‘out of zone’ assuming no fixed shower outlet on the wall or ceiling (which there isn’t) and at 2.45m ceiling height, that makes this light out of zone and therefore it does not need a specific IP rating.
Again, indeed so.
However it does need to be ‘suitable for the conditions’ and I would suggest that it is, based on it having been installed problem free for many years with no signs of corrosion or condensation damage.
Yep, that sounds like a very reasonable view.
Having said that, a C3 recommendation to fit an IPX4 light with perhaps the view that IPX4 would ensure it was ‘suitable’ for bathroom use would not seem too unreasonable?
Well, obviously nothing 'more' than C3. It's perhaps debatable, but I'm personally far from sure that it's 'reasonable' to give a C3 for something which appears to be fully compliant with current regs - as I understand it, C3 is normally used for something which is not compliant with current regs, but which does not present any specific hazard.
Yes, the full disclosure you suggest is probably what I would go with. ...
Fair enough. It would clearly be 'wrong' for you to make use of an EICR which you believed was incorrect/misleading 'in your favour', so I don't see why it would be any less 'wrong' to facilitate a buyer making use of an EICR which you believed was 'incorrect in their favour'.
Although ideally I'd like the money I have already paid to result in a revised and accurate EICR.
Yes, of course - and I suppose that is not impossible (depending upon whether NICIEC 'get interested').

Kind Regards, John
 
Last edited:
When I did my C&G2391 (which is the exam to show you know how to test and inspect an installation) we had a board which had a selection of electrical items normally found in a house, consumer unit, light fittings couple of sockets etc. We had a 2.5 hour lecture and two people could do the inspection and testing of this board in that time. So we had one hour to test a few items on a board.

We were pushed to find all the faults in that time, so if doing a house it would take more than an hour, however the normal method is to test a sample, if faults found you increase size of sample, if no faults found many consider there is no need to remove every socket and switch if it looks as if all were fitted at the same time, and you have 10 sockets and 5 are OK then one can assume the rest are OK and only plug in tester to ensure earth connected and polarity correct.

The report states all your wiring is on the surface so one can see it all, would seem likely as a result that it has been rewired, and normally you can easy see what was fitted in the rewire and what was fitted latter. And council rewire around here is rip out and replace even if it seems all new stuff, any chandelier was binned and replaced with ceiling rose pendent lamp and tenant charged for it's removal. The amount of really good stuff in the skip was a crying shame.

But it does mean with a council rewire your reasonable sure no hidden nasty bits, which makes the guy doing the EICR job rather easy.

As to IP rating well every item will have an IP rating, you could look at the item yourself and IPX4 means protection from splashes of water from any direction it does not need to have a sticker saying it's IPX4, with Class II yes it needs a sticker, but not IPX4. Depending on the make the fitting of RCBO's will cost around £10 each, some are cheaper some more expensive, and you need around 3 fitting so around ½ hour call it an hour with travel so around £80 worth to upgrade, likely take longer doing paper work than the job. This is assuming they will fit in your consumer unit.

For the installation to match current regulations (which is not required) some of the plastic clips on the wires would need replacing with metal, and the consumer unit also replaced with metal, new fire regulations want cables so they can't fall on firemen and get entangled in their breathing apparatus. So it will never comply to current regulations, but it does not need to, clearly if installed in 18xx when we could use knife switches with exposed live parts it would not be permitted, so saying if it complies with regulations valid at time of install it OK is not quite right, but even pre 1966 installations where lights were not earthed are considered OK if all switches and light fittings are class II and there is a sticker on the CU.

As to NICEIC I am not sure, personally I would think if the report is on their headed paperwork which it is, then they should be ensuring up to standard, I have never read the agreement between NICEIC and member electricians. However there is nothing to stop me from downloading the forms from the IET website and doing an EICR, I would be crazy if I did one without insurance, but there is nothing to stop me. If you were injured as a result of me missing a fault, you could take me to court, and people have been taken to court over a death by the HSE when it has been found an EIC was incorrectly filled in, and it would depend on the electricians qualifications as to if he would be found guilty or his foreman, or in this case NICEIC who must ensure he has the knowledge to do the work, before sending him on the job or issuing paperwork showing it is backed by the NICEIC. But this has always been because the inspector missed a fault, not because an inspector reported a non existent fault. And we see words like "reasonable".

I hope once you get an answer from NICEIC you will let us know what they say.
 
The report states all your wiring is on the surface so one can see it all....
Where did you see that?

Whilst the Installation Method of all six circuits is recorded as "Method C", as you know, although that is colloquially referred to as 'clipped direct', it most commonly means that a cable is buried in a wall (or otherwise 'not visible).

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

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top