EICR Questions

[WhydidIstart]

My previous thread of the same title has been locked. There was some very helpful information and also some arguments which I assume is what lead to it being locked.

I still have some on topic info to follow up on.

The NICEIC responded to my question regarding the EICR report I was given clarifying that a new CU would generally not be required simply as it does not meet current regs. Their response mentioned "Approved Contractors" however my electrician was registered on the NICEIC site as an approved "Domestic Installer".

My request for clarification was:

Hi,

Thank you for your clear and helpful response, it is much appreciated.

The EICR report in question relates to a domestic installation and the company in question is registered on the NICEIC site as a Domestic Installer.

Your email below refers to registered Approved Contractors, can you confirm that should the issue not be resolved directly with the contractor, that the NICEIC complaint form and process is still applicable to NICEIC registered Domestic Installers please?


I have just received their response:

Thank you for your reply.

The NICEIC Domestic Installers Scheme is designed to cover the requirements of the building regulations for electrical installation work in a dwelling and therefore does not cover EICR’s.

Although the contractor may well be competent to carry out this type of work as we have not assessed him for competence under this scheme he is not covered by any NICEIC assurances or warranties.

For registered contractors who have assessed y us for this type of work please refer to Approved Contractors.

Regards

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Interesting. I wonder why they see fit to issue official looking forms with Domestic Installer printed on them then.

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting. I wonder why they see fit to issue official looking forms with Domestic Installer printed on them then.

Indeed - I commented about that previously. However, as I said at the time, I think we've so far been shown that logo only on the Schedules sheet, which may well be used for other things other than EICRs (e.e.EICs), which would be legitimate "Domestic Installer work". I therefore would be very interested to know whether any of the EICR-specific pages also bear that logo and, if they do, would (if I were the OP) be asking NICIEC the question you have posed above!

Kind Regards, John

 

[flameport]

I have just received their response:

What they have said is correct - their DI scheme is only for notification of certain work in dwellings as required by building regulations (part P), and doesn't cover anything else such as EICRs or work in any other kind of installation.

There are other schemes which do cover that - the NICEIC 'approved contractor' being one, and other operators have similar schemes.
However none of those are necessary for anyone carrying out EICRs, or any other type of electrical work.

In this case, you are on your own with regards to the EICR and the quality of it - although it may be on NICEIC paper, they have not assessed the person for EICRs and therefore won't get involved.
The only aspect they might get involved with is the DI using their NICEIC certificates for the wrong purpose - however bear in mind anyone can buy green NICEIC certificate pads and use them even if they are not a member of NICEIC at all, and there are no 'DI EICR' certifcates available from NICEIC.

 

[ericmark]

I have down loaded the sheets from the IET website many times, and used them when doing an EICR I was at one time a member of the IET but the sheets were available to anyone to down load.

So yes having IET or NICEIC on the forms only means they designed the form.

However as far as understand in some areas of the UK you must have undergone resent training to be able to do an EICR on rented property.

I would have expected the NICEIC to have used the same rules nation wide, where I live in Wales there is no restriction on who can do an EICR neither is there across the border in England, but Scotland does have rules as to who can issue an EICR.

 

[Risteard]

In response to @SimonH2 on the other thread, he intimates that (R1+R2) is a necessary test on a periodic inspection. I thoroughly refute this - I would suggest it is a pointless test on an already energised installation. Continuity of cpcs can be verified through live testing as the installation is already energised - even GN3 has long stated this explicitly.

R1+R2 is used to verify that an installation is safe to energise to conduct live testing - this doesn't apply where the installation is already energised.

 

[SimonH2]

Continuity of cpcs can be verified through live testing as the installation is already energised - even GN3 has long stated this explicitly.

Where does GN3 state this ? If you are referring to note 4 in 3.10.2 then this only says "may" without suggesting that you shoukd - but I rather suspect the same wording has been there since before RCDs were ubiquitous, "long stated" would support that.
Please explain how you would measure Zs either without a trip-free tester, or with type AC RCDs ?
Apart from that, there is also the matter of testing an installation with modifications. You cannot assume that the circuit as you find it has an acceptable Zs without either measuring or deriving it. In fact, I'd argue that you can never assume that - c.f. comments in various places about even brand new installs that aren't compliant with regs. See above about RCDs, IMO it's simplest to just avoid all the issues, measure Ze, and measure R1+R2 - the CU cover has to come off anyway for inspection so it's then trivial to measure R1+R2 while going round looking into accessories.
EDIT: there is also the safety question of live vs dead testing while (for example) stood up a ladder holding probes into a ceiling rose with one hand, holding onto the ladder with your other hand, and pressing test on your MFT with ... err ...

 

[ericmark]

This raises the question do you twist wires? With wires twisted together even with a loose terminal screw, other sockets on the ring are unlikely to be affected and also the cables can't easy be pulled out of the terminal, however untwisting to test can weaken cables and cause them to break, and test tug to see if cables firmly gripped can give erroneous results.

So when removing a socket with twisted cables to either test or replace specially with single core is untwisting the cables good or bad? This is an extension of question is removing a socket for testing good or bad, as I have found terminals with bad connections after being disturbed, so when I remove a socket I always test terminals for tightness.

So with a loop impedance tester using 15 mA to test is that enough to show all OK, specially where records are kept, one can see if the result matched last result so assuming first test did check ring continuity, subsequent tests will also show ring continuity without the need to take a socket off.

However then you need a report with loop impedance and prospective fault current for every socket, which would also then identify any new sockets.

So in premises where the electrical system is under the control of skilled personnel really there is no need for sockets to be removed, keeping of good records can reduce what is required and pinpoint any faults as reading change. But this is not really the case with the home.

Some times one finds something odd, did with my daughters house, it seems we have lollipop system with 2.5mm at sockets but 4mm at consumer unit, I can find no junction box where the change happens, and I think when the garage was converted into an extra room, the CU was moved, so some where in the wall where the old unit was, there is likely a set of junctions, we would hope in a box, and we would hope maintenance free types, however it is unknown, there are no records, and without bashing holes in the wall no way to find what was done.

Since can't really be sure my son fitted 25A MCB's to the socket circuits, so unlikely to ever be an overload, but we can't test for poor connections any other way than keeping records and looking for any degrade in the results.

We should always give the tester the last set of results so he can identify any changes, and further investigate, however lack of trust, people don't give the tester old results in case he simply copies them.

 

[SimonH2]

This raises the question do you twist wires?

I used to because that's how I was taught <cough> decades ago. But as you say, it's a PITA later if you need to separate them.
However, with solid cores I would not twist them because you are quite likely to cut a core off. There's a very good chance that the wires are crossing over under the terminal screw, so rather than just indenting the cores, the screw is likely to cut one or both cores where they cross - I've first hand experience of this
It's different with stranded wire, the more strands the better regarding the problem of the screw cutting the cores off. But with stranded, I'd be using bootlace ferrules and not twisting the wires together. It does depend a bit on the cable sizes though - the last time I was working on a socket circuit, it was a radial done in the old 7/036 (about 4.5mm²) and with a branch done in 2.5mm². Getting about 11.5mm² of cable into the socket terminals was tricky and I reckon on the limit of what would go in - the CPCs were a bit easier with being smaller.

specially where records are kept

I can see that in larger installation there may be, as you suggest, someone "in charge" of such things - but I would suggest that in the vast majority of cases the EICR is something done to tick a box, whether it's a legal thing (like landlords in Scotland) or an insurance thing or ... Once it's done, as long as it says "Satisfactory" then it gets filed away and never sees the light of day again - certainly not available to the next person doing an inspection who will probably be a different person who's quoted a cheaper price.

... however lack of trust, people don't give the tester old results in case he simply copies them.

I'd be tempted to doctor the results table and see if the new test results match that or what they should be But as above, most people wouldn't even know where to find the one from 5 or more years ago.[/QUOTE]

 

[John D v2.0]

Regarding live testing of Zs, that would be very tricky to know it's right as you can't really disconnect all the parallel paths without disconnecting the bonding. If you do it with the circuit disconnected at the DB, you can know that you're only measuring the relevant resistance regardless of what's on the circuit in terms of water heaters and whatnot.

 

[WhydidIstart]

Hi, regarding the EICR I had carried out last month, I have looked at the CU and it still has an old sticker on from a previous inspection 10 years ago.

Looking at the CU, is the consensus still that updating it should be a C3 for no RCD protection on lights and cooker circuits and not a C1?

Should the electrician have put a new sticker on the unit saying who he was and that it has been inspected, or would that only go on it if the EICR results in a ‘satisfactory’ result? To me it seems odd to leave the old sticker on when a newer inspection has been carried out, however I can also see that fitting a new ‘Inspected on…’ sticker implies to the average person looking at it that it was inspected and is ok and maybe the Electrician didn’t want to do that if he felt not having the RCD was a C1?

Also I haven't forgotten John's previous question about whether the Domestic Installer logo apears on the other pages of the EICR, I will check that.

 

[JohnW2]

Hi, regarding the EICR I had carried out last month, I have looked at the CU and it still has an old sticker on from a previous inspection 10 years ago.

As I read it, the only previous inspection documented by a sticker was 20 years ago, with a recommendation that a further inspection (which may well never have happened) should have happened 10 years ago.

Looking at the CU, is the consensus still that updating it should be a C3 for no RCD protection on lights and cooker circuits and not a C1?

As you've seen, opinions vary a little, but I think the consensus is that, if anything, it should not be more than a C3. Depending upon what the actual situatioin (and perceived problem) may be, the "bathroom light improvement" may well not deserve a C2.

Also I haven't forgotten John's previous question about whether the Domestic Installer logo apears on the other pages of the EICR, I will check that.

Having looked at what forms are available, and what NICIEC have written to you, it now seems very unlikely that NICIEC would produce any EICR-specific forms bearing a Domestic Installer logo, since it is clear that they do not regard such people as 'approved' (by them) to undertake EICRs. The one sheet you have shown us which bears such a log is the Schedule, which probably comes from the set of forms DIs use for installation work.

I'm not sure that it would achieve anything, but you might want to moan to NICIEC that one of their Domestic Installers is not only undertaking EICRs, but is using their forms in a way which misleads people into thinking that the EICR has been undertaken by someone approved by NICIEC to undertake such work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[WhydidIstart]

Thank you again to everyone for your helpful input. To answer some questions from the previous thread(s):

Yes BAS, sadly I have already paid, I needed to pay in order to receive the certificate.

JohnW2 - The NICEIC logo and Domestic Installer logo appears on the top of all 7 sheets of the report.

As several people have said, yes I appear to be on my own as this guy was an “NICEIC approved Domestic Installer” and not an “NICEIC Approved Contractor” which means the NICEIC hasn’t assessed him for competency for doing EICRs so are unlikely to help me with this substandard one, even though their logo is all over the report I received.

Ericmark – you mentioned “some areas of the UK you must have undergone resent training to be able to do an EICR on rented property.” Do you know which areas these are, is there a list somewhere?

EFLImpudence said “Incidentally, what inspection or verification of work do they do to an electrician for him to become an 'approved contractor'? Does this include testing to carry out EICRs?”

I can’t answer that, but found these links.

https://www.niceic.com/join-us/approved-contractor-scheme
https://www.niceic.com/join-us/part-p-domestic-installer-scheme

 

[WhydidIstart]

As I read it, the only previous inspection documented by a sticker was 20 years ago, with a recommendation that a further inspection (which may well never have happened) should have happened 10 years ago.

Sorry, you're obviously right. About 9 years ago I asked the DNO to replace the wires feeding the meter (as the existing ones were physically damaged with cuts to the insulation) and the DNO replaced the wires and fitted a new meter and that's what I was thinking of. Note they have changed the meter again since then!

Hopefully the photos remove any ambiguity and good the concensus is still a C3.

The bathroom light was not IPX4, I said at the time wasn't it out of zone as it's on the ceiling and higher than 2.25m, however the guy said "needs to be IPx4 in a bathroom".

What do people do regarding putting an updated 'inspected on...' sticker on the CU please?

 

[JohnW2]

JohnW2 - The NICEIC logo and Domestic Installer logo appears on the top of all 7 sheets of the report.
.... As several people have said, yes I appear to be on my own as this guy was an “NICEIC approved Domestic Installer” and not an “NICEIC Approved Contractor” which means the NICEIC hasn’t assessed him for competency for doing EICRs so are unlikely to help me with this substandard one, even though their logo is all over the report I received.

I'm getting confused! .... If all the pages (most of which will be totally EICR-specific) bear the NICEIC 'Domestic Installer' logo, then how on earth can it be the case that NICEIC does not 'approve' of their Domestic Installers undertaking EICRs (and hence are not interested in complaints about such EICRs) if they issue such forms?

Kind Regards, John