EICR Questions

[ban-all-sheds]

Where would you file that permanent record, how would you present it to your client, and how would you associate it with the EICR?

Any chance of you taking this seriously?

Any chance of you realising that I, and very likely everybody else here, is aware that you are twisting and wriggling and doing absolutely anything you can to avoid addressing the problem that your "An EICR should only state factual discrepancies based on the regs at the time of installation" was utter nonsense?

 

[SimonH2]

Given that there is a standard form for the report, might you perhaps write it in Section K, Observations ?

 

[John D v2.0]

Eicrs would be done to the latest regs otherwise they wouldn't be much use. Classification codes are non compliance with the current regs that affect the safety of the installation.
Remember it's not a report on the person who did the work original, it's a report on the installation. It may seem perverse that an installation could receive classification codes on the day the installation is completed but better than ignoring things that are now known to pose a danger, for example wiring systems not correctly supported in escape routes (as an example, let's not digress into that!)
At the end of the report the installation will be deemed either satisfactory (only code 3s and observations) or unsatisfactory (subject to the agreed limitations), and any clarification codes listed, which would be at the discretion of the tester.

 

[JohnW2]

Given that there is a standard form for the report, might you perhaps write it in Section K, Observations ?

Yes, but Section K has a column for "Classification Code" and the notes at the bottom of it give no indication that it is acceptable to not give a code for each 'observation' - so which would he use - C1, C2, C3 or FI ? ....

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... satisfactory (only code 3s and observations)

As I've just posted, it doesn't seem that the standard form is intended to be used to record 'observations' which have no code.

Kind Regards, John

 

[donrkebab]

Given that there is a standard form for the report, might you perhaps write it in Section K, Observations ?

That's a good idea, but it is section E as follows:

SECTION E. SUMMARY OF THE CONDITION OF THE INSTALLATION
General condition of the installation (in terms of electrical safety) .............................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Overall assessment of the installation in terms of its suitability for continued use
SATISFACTORY / UNSATISFACTORY* (Delete as appropriate)
*An unsatisfactory assessment indicates that dangerous (code C1) and/or potentially dangerous (code C2) conditions have been identified

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm a professional from the real world.

It is incorrect to believe that every item of non-conformity with the current regulations which may give rise to danger should be recorded.

Please tell us, donrkebab, to what extent do professionals from the real world ignore non-conformities which may give rise to danger?

Also you have no idea about what "is acceptable and common practice" in this industry, because you have never worked in this industry.

Can you please tell us, when engaged to produce a report on the condition of an electrical installation, what the acceptable and common practice is regarding not telling your client about things which may give rise to danger to him?

 

[Risteard]

½ hour means he barely got the tools out of the van let alone did the inspection & testing required.

It's worth remembering that there is no required level of inspection and testing for a periodic inspection. It is subject to the extent and limitations agreed with the Client, notwithstanding any operational limitations on the inspection.

 

[donrkebab]

Please tell us, donrkebab, to what extent do professionals from the real world ignore non-conformities which may give rise to danger?



Can you please tell us, when engaged to produce a report on the condition of an electrical installation, what the acceptable and common practice is regarding not telling your client about things which may give rise to danger to him?

As usual, bas is now lying about what I've said, and he hasn't even thanked me for answering his stupid questions.

 

[SimonH2]

It's worth remembering that there is no required level of inspection and testing for a periodic inspection. It is subject to the extent and limitations agreed with the Client, notwithstanding any operational limitations on the inspection.

OK, but there is going to be a limit on how little any honest and competent sparky is going to do. In reductio ad absurdum, the client could ask you to just give it a pass without even looking at it. You are going to struggle to get the front off the CU, get Ze etc, pop your temporary L-E link on, measure some R1+R2 values, remove your link, and put the CU cover back on - and of course, write down the results - in ½ hour. You'll need some tools, MFT, and ladders from the van before you start, and put them away again after - which also need to come out of the ½ hour.
Yes there's scope for selecting how much to do - but there is a minimum if you are actually doing what's needed for a valid report. So I still think it's reasonable to say that the required amount of test and inspection for anything honestly described as an EICR cannot be done in that time. Unless you are Colonel Steve Austin, but even then you'll have to wait for the MFT to run the tests

 

[WhydidIstart]

It's worth remembering that there is no required level of inspection and testing for a periodic inspection. It is subject to the extent and limitations agreed with the Client, notwithstanding any operational limitations on the inspection.

Hi, it's now clear I really should have avoided this electrician. However at the time I requested an EICR, I wasn't given any options, he simply said "ok" on the phone and then spent approx. 30 mins at the house. The CU is at eye height on the wall, so easy to access. When he called afterwards he said what I described earlier about needing a new CU and gave me the £600 estimate. When I questioned needing a new CU was when he said “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”.

I said I'd prefer to start with just the EICR, when I went round to collect it I was waiting for about 15 mins as he apparently couldn't find it, however it then turned up. I'm wondering if perhaps he didn't really do much testing, thinking he would be installing a new CU and would do more testing then? I really hope not, but perhaps the 15 mins of him looking for the EICR was him entering some figures into the computer to print one off?

 

[donrkebab]

It is critical to carry out full testing before a CU change, this to identify any faults that would cause an RCD to trip, any such faults must be rectified before the CU change.

Any electrician telling you he will test after the CU change is a crook. They are hoping to con you into paying unlimited extra costs while they search for the faults causing the new RCD's to trip.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As usual, bas is now lying about what I've said, and he hasn't even thanked me for answering his stupid questions.

This is not a lie - it is what you said:

I'm a professional from the real world

This?

It is incorrect to believe that every item of non-conformity with the current regulations which may give rise to danger should be recorded.

Well, let's see. Firstly, note that I did not say it was a verbatim quote, I said it was in effect what you said.

Was that truthful? Let's see.

This is not a lie - it is what you said:

So you incorrectly believe that every item of non compliance with current regs should be recorded.

So what's a "non-compliance"? It's a "non-conformance which may give rise to danger".

Therefore it is perfectly correct to substitute that in your statement, giving

"So you incorrectly believe that every item of non-conformity with the current regulations which may give rise to danger should be recorded."

If you allege that someone incorrectly believes something then you are saying that it is incorrect to believe it.

So yes, truthfully, you really did say, in effect

"It is incorrect to believe that every item of non-conformity with the current regulations which may give rise to danger should be recorded."


Finally this is not a lie - it is what you said:

Also you have no idea about what "is acceptable and common practice" in this industry, because you have never worked in this industry.

 

[seasickstevie]

Describing any electrician who does a CU change without complete tests as a 'crook' is a bit extreme to say the least.

If the CU that's coming out has got a single RCD feeding the whole board, and there hasn't been a problem, and it's being replaced by a rack of RCBOs for example, the only likely issue is going to be a shared neutral.

That's not to say it isn't good practice to do an EICR first. But doing it after the install (as an EIC) certainly doesn't categorise him as a 'crook'.

I've worked in situations like that where there's been limited daylight (going dark middle of the afternoon) and you really need to crack on with the job. You can do the tests later.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

.