EICR Report Query adding sockets

[ericmark]

I would agree that items not fixed or intended to be fixed should not be part of an EICR, and the new landlord law states just that.

However the electricial safety council has for years shown a picture of adaptors plugged in as an example of insufficient sockets, I have always felt that was wrong, however I can understand why an inspector would follow what the electrical safety council says.

We have always had a lot of personal options expressed with an EICR but until the new law the owner could ignore what was said, the EICR was never intended to be an MOT.

 

[JohnW2]

However the electricial safety council has for years shown a picture of adaptors plugged in as an example of insufficient sockets, ....

Well, in some senses that is just a statement of the obvious - since it is difficult to see why adapters would be used if there were 'sufficient' sockets. However, whether (given satisfactory adapters) that is a significant safety issue is perhaps a different question.

I have always felt that was wrong, however I can understand why an inspector would follow what the electrical safety council says.

That surely depends upon the nature of the 'inspection'. If it is an inspection undertaken to establish compliance (or otherwise) with BS7671 (aka an EICR), then it would seem clear that what anyone/anything other than BS7671 'says' is not relevant, isn't it?

We have always had a lot of personal options expressed with an EICR but until the new law the owner could ignore what was said ...

Indeed so - at least unless some third party (insurer, lender etc.) had an interest in what the EICR said.

.... the EICR was never intended to be an MOT.

There are many similarities. In particular, both seek to determine whether something (an electrical installation or vehicle, respectively) is deemed to be 'adequately safety for purpose'.

The big difference is that MOT inspectors are, wherever possible, bound by explicit/prescriptive 'pass/fail rules', minimising the need for individual opinions/judgements - whereas there are essentially no rules, or even 'guidance' for EICR inspectors as regards the crucial judgement as to whether or not a particular issue is sufficiently 'potentially dangerous' to require a 'fail' coding.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

It would seem reading the law that the local council can decide the coding is wrong, however I remember in early days of Part P here in Wales notifying LABC and the inspector was honest with me saying they simply had no electrical training, so they had a list of trusted electrical contractors who would do an EICR for them, under instructions to consider it as a new installation, so although using EICR forms it was done as if an installation certificate. Which they did not need to give me. In the end I was allowed to submit an installation certificate and third part inspectors were not used. However the question is if there is some one on the local council who has enough knowledge to say if the installation is OK or not?

Being fair Liverpool council did have an electrician who was a LABC inspector, so it seems a lottery as to which council you happen to use. Clearly from the Grenfell Tower fire LABC inspectors don't know it all, and rely on so called experts.

To have no 230 volt can't be classed as "potentially dangerous" we have had houses for 100's of years without electrical power. I have lived in a caravan without any electric other than road traffic lights. OK it had gas lights, so not in darkness, but as an electrical inspector looking for "potentially dangerous" it is beyond our remit to decide if the premises is habitable or safe, all we do is look at the electrical installation. So a LABC inspector may look at emergency lights, smoke detectors, heat detectors and a host of other things that are considered as required to make the home habitable or safe, but as an electrical inspector our remit is if what is fitted is safe, lack of a hob, oven, washing machine, dish washer or any other appliance is beyond our remit.

This

is beyond our remit, I have seen this where a builder is trying to dry out plaster, socket circuits grossly overloaded, but it was temporary, and as an inspector all we need to know is has this damaged the installation? If not then no problem, same with non BS1363 items plugged into sockets, if we see one of these silly things

plugged into a socket, in spite being fatally flawed all we can do is unplug it and put it in the bin, it says

Socket covers can cause permanent damage to sockets, oversize pins can result in overheating (as illustrated) and possibly the socket catching fire!

and shows

as an example, but as an inspector until the socket shows signs of damage we can't do anything other than direct the occupants to website and advise them not to use them. We can't demand that all sockets in the home are changed as the plastic lumps not to BS1363 have been used.

So can't see how lack of any electrical installation can be an electrical fail. It is simply not there. We unplug the adaptors and advise against using something which can cause damage to sockets, but simply can't fail on lack of sockets, it is beyond our remit, same with smoke detectors, cooker connection units, etc. We can only test what is there.

 

[SUNRAY]

It would seem reading the law that the local council can decide the coding is wrong, however I remember in early days of Part P here in Wales notifying LABC and the inspector was honest with me saying they simply had no electrical training, so they had a list of trusted electrical contractors who would do an EICR for them, under instructions to consider it as a new installation, so although using EICR forms it was done as if an installation certificate. Which they did not need to give me. In the end I was allowed to submit an installation certificate and third part inspectors were not used. However the question is if there is some one on the local council who has enough knowledge to say if the installation is OK or not?

Being fair Liverpool council did have an electrician who was a LABC inspector, so it seems a lottery as to which council you happen to use. Clearly from the Grenfell Tower fire LABC inspectors don't know it all, and rely on so called experts.

To have no 230 volt can't be classed as "potentially dangerous" we have had houses for 100's of years without electrical power. I have lived in a caravan without any electric other than road traffic lights. OK it had gas lights, so not in darkness, but as an electrical inspector looking for "potentially dangerous" it is beyond our remit to decide if the premises is habitable or safe, all we do is look at the electrical installation. So a LABC inspector may look at emergency lights, smoke detectors, heat detectors and a host of other things that are considered as required to make the home habitable or safe, but as an electrical inspector our remit is if what is fitted is safe, lack of a hob, oven, washing machine, dish washer or any other appliance is beyond our remit.

This View attachment 232915 is beyond our remit, I have seen this where a builder is trying to dry out plaster, socket circuits grossly overloaded, but it was temporary, and as an inspector all we need to know is has this damaged the installation? If not then no problem, same with non BS1363 items plugged into sockets, if we see one of these silly things View attachment 232916 plugged into a socket, in spite being fatally flawed all we can do is unplug it and put it in the bin, it says and shows

as an example, but as an inspector until the socket shows signs of damage we can't do anything other than direct the occupants to website and advise them not to use them. We can't demand that all sockets in the home are changed as the plastic lumps not to BS1363 have been used.

So can't see how lack of any electrical installation can be an electrical fail. It is simply not there. We unplug the adaptors and advise against using something which can cause damage to sockets, but simply can't fail on lack of sockets, it is beyond our remit, same with smoke detectors, cooker connection units, etc. We can only test what is there.

Although I agree with all of the above there are situations where we are supposed to highlight missing items, such as RCD, OCP for submain from Henley etc and based on the fact the EICR is a money making scheme an opinion based on the 'safety' inspection, highlighting insufficient sockets is not invalid, whether it's codeable is a different matter but certainly not C2.

 

[JohnW2]

It would seem reading the law that the local council can decide the coding is wrong, however I remember in early days of Part P here in Wales notifying LABC and the inspector was honest with me saying they simply had no electrical training, so they had a list of trusted electrical contractors who would do an EICR for them, under instructions to consider it as a new installation, so although using EICR forms it was done as if an installation certificate. ...

The scope of an EICR will always be appreciably greater than that of an EIC and, in the case of some small items of work, can be dramatically greater - for example, for them to ask someone to "do an EICR for them" would seem way OTT if the work had consisted of, say, just the installation of a new dedicated circuit for, say, an immersion heater, shower or freezer, wouldn't it?

I can therefore but assume that you are not talking 'in general' but, rather, specifically about situations in fairly major work has been undertaken (although, even then, the scope of an EICR would be greater than that of an EIC, particularly as regards the 'inspection' parts).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

.... an opinion based on the 'safety' inspection, highlighting insufficient sockets is not invalid, whether it's codeable is a different matter but certainly not C2.

I think some would argue that something should only be given even a C3 if one can cite a regulation in BS7671 which is not being satisfied.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

This ..... is beyond our remit, I have seen this where a builder is trying to dry out plaster, socket circuits grossly overloaded, but it was temporary ....

That's an interesting one, since that "grossly overloaded" is only possible because, for some reason, 2-way adapters do not have to be fused.

.... and as an inspector all we need to know is has this damaged the installation? If not then no problem ...

Exactly. As I said to the OP, it's fair enough for the EICR to note (and coded, not unreasonably C2) that some sockets have (by whatever means) been thermally damaged, and the expect them to be replaced but there is no way that an EICR can require additional sockets to be installed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Although I agree with all of the above there are situations where we are supposed to highlight missing items, such as RCD, OCP for submain from Henley etc and based on the fact the EICR is a money making scheme an opinion based on the 'safety' inspection, highlighting insufficient sockets is not invalid, whether it's codeable is a different matter but certainly not C2.

I would agree, be it to do with electrical safety or not, we have a duty to point things out. If I do not point out an oil spillage and latter admit I noticed it and did not do anything in writing to inform about it, I could be fined by HSE, while doing an EICR it is my work place so heath and safety at work applies.

But there is no need for the oil spillage to appear on the EICR. Most likely is a text message.

I in fact worry about including any non electrical safety matter on an EICR. I had a house buyers survey done, and the inspector included in the survey a report about the condition of the electrical installation, the inspector is clearly a professional, so he as given me an EICR, clearly not what we think of as an EICR but never the less it technically is one.

Had he said in the report we advise buyer to get an EICR done, there seems to be an unused fuse box between new and old ceilings then like oil spillage it is simply a comment, in the same way we could comment there seems to be a general lack of sockets, or there are no smoke alarms we suggest to get a survey by Country Fire department, this alerts owner to problem, but makes it clear the report is not a fire inspection report.

If some one doing an EICR writes down simply no smokes in kitchen, then the report can be seen as including a fire prevention inspection. So one has to be careful to keep to the remit.

In fact many places I have worked the electrician does go around with the smoke bomb and test smoke alarms, but the report is not part of the EICR. It is a separate report, like testing a RCD can be press test button, or use a RCD tester to measure the amount of current, and time with both positive or negative cycle, so testing a smoke alarm can be press test button or use a calibrated smoke bomb. And one must be careful not to miss lead the client into thinking the EICR is any more than the condition or the electrical installation. EICR means electrical installation condition report, not an electrical installation compliance report.