Floating sockets..

[pete01]

No-one seems to agree with me that some serious re-thinking of the whole EICR business is needed.

I agree with that.

 

[Highway Man]

No-one seems to agree with me that some serious re-thinking of the whole EICR business is needed.

The whole EICR is a bit wavy depending on who does it. My opinion is that for someone to conductt an EICR then they should not only have the relevant qualifications but the years of industry experience to back up the qualification. You need to have an understanding of the circuit that you are looking at and correctly identify classification codes rather than simply looking at them and quoting from a regs book that may not take into account other problems or factors that make something high or low risk.

 

[pete01]

The whole EICR is a bit wavy depending on who does it. My opinion is that for someone to conductt an EICR then they should not only have the relevant qualifications but the years of industry experience to back up the qualification. You need to have an understanding of the circuit that you are looking at and correctly identify classification codes rather than simply looking at them and quoting from a regs book that may not take into account other problems or factors that make something high or low risk.

I think it would be much better if the person testing isn't allowed to do the remedial work.....controversial.

 

[Highway Man]

I think it would be much better if the person testing isn't allowed to do the remedial work.....controversial.

I have actually seen EICR's where I have been asked to either look as a second opinion or quote for remedial work that needs doing, sometimes I have seriously questioned the integrity of the tester and either seen more issues or none at all.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with that.

Agree with what? - that no-one seems to agree with me about it, OR that the whole EICR business needs serious re-thinking?

 

[pete01]

that the whole EICR business needs serious re-thinking?

This.

 

[securespark]

I'm glad I'm not responding any more.

 

[securespark]

Damn!!!

 

[JohnW2]

The whole EICR is a bit wavy depending on who does it. My opinion is that for someone to conductt an EICR then they should not only have the relevant qualifications but the years of industry experience to back up the qualification.

I totally agree. As I wrote in post #49 above, essentially repeating what I've been saying for years ...

.... my personal opinion that there is need for a lot more restriction/regulation/education of those who can undertake EICRs, a lot more audit/policing of what EICR inspectors do (with the ability to 'ban' them from doing further EICRs when necessary) and some method of formal appeal/dispute (to some 'authority') against the finding of an EICR.

I'm perhaps less concerned about qualifications and experience (although they are probably a reasonable starting point) than I am about how they are seen to behave when actually undertaking EICRs 'in anger'. A truly robust system of oversight/audit/policing of EICRs would therefore seem highly desirable.

You need to have an understanding of the circuit that you are looking at and correctly identify classification codes rather than simply looking at them and quoting from a regs book that may not take into account other problems or factors that make something high or low risk.

Again true, but I think there also is a need for the rules/regs to make it much more clear as to the basis on which coding should be done. It really is not very satisfactory to have the most important distinction (that between what we currently call C2 and C3) to be based on the perceived presence or absence of 'potential danger', which is so subjective that it would frequently be the case that different inspectors wouldn't agree. At the very least, as you have done, there should be a reference to the perceived magnitude of risk (of 'potential danger') - but, as I've said, even that comes with all sorts of problems.

 

[JohnW2]

This.

I'm glad you agree.

In that case, why have you, and others, been arguing so much with me, and even suggesting that I should 'shut up', when I would have expected you to be sympathetic to, and agreeing with, at least some of the things I've been saying about EICRs as they currently are?

 

[JohnW2]

I think it would be much better if the person testing isn't allowed to do the remedial work.....controversial.

A as I've often reported, I am involved with the commissioning of a lot of EICRs in connection with a family member's business. Whenever we have to start using a new/unfamiliar person to do this, we initially always make it very clear that they will not be asked to undertake any remedial work which thier EICR may identify as being needed and, in the case of the very first EICR someone does for us, we often also make it clear that we will be getting someone else (whom we know and 'trust') to undertake an EICR on the same installation. Most (but not all!) people accept this, and those who don't are just 'sent away'.

I would say that, over the years, having seen their first EICR for us, we have decided in at least half the cases that we would never use the person for an EICR (or, probably, anything else) again.

 

[JohnW2]

I have actually seen EICR's where I have been asked to either look as a second opinion or quote for remedial work that needs doing, sometimes I have seriously questioned the integrity of the tester and either seen more issues or none at all.

That doesn't surprise me. See what I've just posted about our experiences!

 

[pete01]

I'm glad you agree.

In that case, why have you, and others, been arguing so much with me, and even suggesting that I should 'shut up', when I would have expected you to be sympathetic to, and agreeing with, at least some of the things I've been saying about EICRs as they currently are?

I've not been arguing just discussing and disagreeing a bit about the floating socket ....and I dont want you to shut up, I like reading your posts, I said leave it john as a bit of a joke...

 

[pete01]

A as I've often reported, I am involved with the commissioning of a lot of EICRs in connection with a family member's business. Whenever we have to start using a new/unfamiliar person to do this, we initially always make it very clear that they will not be asked to undertake any remedial work which thier EICR may identify as being needed and, in the case of the very first EICR someone does for us, we often also make it clear that we will be getting someone else (whom we know and 'trust') to undertake an EICR on the same installation. Most (but not all!) people accept this, and those who don't are just 'sent away'.

I would say that, over the years, having seen their first EICR for us, we have decided in at least half the cases that we would never use the person for an EICR (or, probably, anything else) again.

So if I done an EICR for you and put a C3 for that floating socket would you use me again?

 

[Highway Man]

So if I done an EICR for you and put a C3 for that floating socket would you use me again?

It is a C3 all day long.