Fuse board - EICR assessment

[ebee]

Those are your personal views, mine are my professional views.

nonetheless in both cases the views are either valid or not valid

 

[ebee]

However, I was talking about who should be allowed to undertake EICRs, and that's rather a different matter - even if electricians had to be 'registered' in the manner you would like, I don't think they should be allowed to undertake EICRs unless the are specifically licensed/whatever so to do.

Yes Agreed in part. I have come across Electricians who are very lacking in the skills of doing an EICR and some who are very good at it. Unfortunately the good ones appear to be the smaller percentage in my humble opinion.

 

[Murdochcat]

Yes Agreed in part. I have come across Electricians who are very lacking in the skills of doing an EICR and some who are very good at it. Unfortunately the good ones appear to be the smaller percentage in my humble opinion.

hit, nail and head springs to mind

Too often C2's are used when they are actually C3's

 

[ebee]

hit, nail and head springs to mind

Too often C2's are used when they are actually C3's

Yes agreed, in reality often the case as you point out

 

[JohnW2]

Yes Agreed in part. I have come across Electricians who are very lacking in the skills of doing an EICR and some who are very good at it. Unfortunately the good ones appear to be the smaller percentage in my humble opinion.

You appear to simply be agreeing with me. What is the 'part' you disagree with?

 

[ericmark]

Yes Agreed in part. I have come across Electricians who are very lacking in the skills of doing an EICR and some who are very good at it. Unfortunately the good ones appear to be the smaller percentage in my humble opinion.

I remember when doing the C&G 2391 saying to other students, we can't do what we are being taught, it would take a couple of days to test one house. We had a board to test for the exam, with a CU, couple of sockets, and a couple of lights, not much on the board, but we had an hour to test and inspect it.

So from day one of getting the C&G 2391, we have looked at how to do the work faster. For me, I was in-house, so inspection and testing was done when we had some free time, often a room at a time, and often part of a larger job, a factory the size I worked in, one could not dream of doing it all in a week never mind a day, and we would select a sample to test, not every socket would be opened up, and since all electrics were done by an electrician we were not really looking for an installation error.

The biggest skill was working out what was likely to be a problem, and for that comparing readings was a good indication of when something was degrading, I on the odd time when doing a domestic, have never been given the old report, so not possible to compare readings.

Also, the idea was to inspect around 1/3 if no faults found then OK, we would try to pick a different 1/3 to what was tested last time, so every three inspections, all inspected, this relied on the same person each time, so they knew what had been already looked at, and often we had already looked at some things with general maintenance, if however a fault was found then 2/3 inspected, and if more faults found all inspected.

This was a standard method with commercial property, I know domestic is different, but there was not a C&G2391 domestic and another C&G2391 commercial, it was the same exam, and same rules apply.

I remember the MOT latter DoE for cars and then wagons coming out, and with the one for wagons, we had a little book telling us exactly what was and what was not permitted, like the amount of king pin wear permitted, and have known when spare parts were on back order, and a king pin was getting near the wear limit, a dial gauge being used, both pre-MOT and in the MOT station. There was no argument, we knew exactly what was permitted, cars were not so cut and dried, as the amount of rust permitted could not be quantified, but in the main there was little to argue about.

But "potentially dangerous" is stupid, 230 volts is always potentially dangerous, so if we have a consumer unit an inch from the ceiling, and the knockouts mean not within the IP rating for a top, the chance of anything falling into the CU is still very slim, but put the same CU at floor level, then the same holes could present a real danger. The same when considering access by young or very old, in the factory there was no one under 16 and no one over 65, OK upper limit now changed, but there was no one employed who was likely to stick their finger in a hole to feel what was inside.

So looking at this

if you find socket covers in the home, is it a C1 or C2 or do you ignore them? As with young children in the house, you are giving them socket covers to play with, so likely they with use them. It is just another version of this,

⁣but when my daughter wanted to do child minding, she was told she must have them. And in spite of now the NHS banning them, they are still in my doctor's waiting room. OK tongue in cheek, as the holes exposed are within the IP rating, so yes only C3 if anything, but we do lack general instruction of what should be allowed in domestic.

 

[ebee]

Those "Socket Safety Covers" do not come within the remit of an EICR but yes I always warn folk about them when I see them or they mention them.
I advise them to google fatally flawed and see for themselves.

PS - next week we might run a campaign to ban open ended bayonet cap lamp holders or even ES and SES lamp-holders too!
Seriously though, there has been at least one death around my area involving a BC Lampholder in a table lamp the family gave a youngster

 

[ebee]

You appear to simply be agreeing with me. What is the 'part' you disagree with?

"Specifically Licensed to undertake EICR" requirements am not sure if that would help much on its own but would certainly become a cash cow for some .
Do not ask me what the answer is to the problem though, but yes there is a problem I agree on that.

I am incensed time and again when I see EICRs that are meaningless, miss whopping obvious defects and apply defect codes to non defects and one in particular who is approved by a body electrical and gets their workers to do the number of inspections each day to render anything remotely meaningful on the reports, I am not the speediest knife in the box on EICRs in domestic settings and I dislike them, yet I see many with glaring omissions or complete mistakes I think that must be an alternative Edition of BS7671 for them to work to, about as much credibility as driving by and counting the windows and practically nothing else.
I see the same "on new builds" 20 or 30 or 40 get built and one gets some testing and all the EICs gets filled in for the whole Batch of those houses, I know some of the Electricians that work on them and they confirm that this "procedure" is typical.
It is difficult that all of the defects I see have only become defects once proper testing and inspecting has been done, it is simply not possible really.

When I was a lad we could buy a newssheet from the local joke-shop called "Billy`s Weekly Liar" I christened some EICs and EICRs to become a part of that publication.

 

[JohnW2]

"Specifically Licensed to undertake EICR" requirements am not sure if that would help much on its own but would certainly become a cash cow for some .

As I've said in the past, it might not, at least initially, result in EICRs being 'done better'- BUT if one had to be 'licensed' to do them, and IF there were some reasonable 'policing' (not the least by having an indication on the EICR form as to whom one could, and should, 'report' any EICR that one was not happy with) then at least the 'poor performers' (not to mention the half-hour cowboys and the work-generating ones) could have their licenses revoked.

Do not ask me what the answer is to the problem though, but yes there is a problem I agree on that.

I think we're all agreed that there is a problem, and I've made one suggestion (as above) as to a possible way the situation could perhaps be improved. It would also be good to have some formal (and 'effective') means of 'appealing' an EICR - although that would be of limited value, since most members of the general public would probably not know when they should appeal.

 

[Murdochcat]

The fundamental problem with EICRs is that people, Landlords especially, think they can be done for peanuts and in about 1 hour.

I absolutely never work for lettings agents, nor estate agents - but I do work directly for homeowners who value the job being done properly and thoroughly

 

[JohnW2]

The fundamental problem with EICRs is that people, Landlords especially, think they can be done for peanuts and in about 1 hour.

If people weren't prepared to do "1-hour 'EICRs' for peanuts" then, like it or not, landlords would not be able to get EICRs done for peanuts. So either electricians should get their own house in order (particularly 'electricians')or else some legislated regulation such as I have suggested should be put in place .... all that, of course, 'in my opinion'!

In terms of what I was suggesting, I would imagine that not spending enough time doing an 'EICR' (or not charging enough, the implication being that they weren't spending enough time doing it) would be one of the reasons why a 'licence to do EICRs' would be revoked.

I absolutely never work for lettings agents, nor estate agents ....

I don't see why you shouldn't - provided that they accept your price for doing it properly. If they don't accept it, then that's their loss (or the loss of whoever they are acting for).

 

[Murdochcat]

If people weren't prepared to do "1-hour 'EICRs' for peanuts" then, like it or not, landlords would not be able to get EICRs done for peanuts. So either electricians should get their own house in order (particularly 'electricians')or else some legislated regulation such as I have suggested should be put in place .... all that, of course, 'in my opinion'!

Problem is the cheap set always look to code incorrectly to generate remedial work

I don't see why you shouldn't - provided that they accept your price for doing it properly. If they don't accept it, then that's their loss (or the loss of whoever they are acting for).

Lettings agents and estate agents add vat and margin. - then are really bad payers.

Why should I wait months for payment?

 

[JohnW2]

Problem is the cheap set always look to code incorrectly to generate remedial work

Indeed - and those are the ones who I would hope would 'lose their licences to do EICRs) as fast as they got them, if a system such as I suggested was implemented

Lettings agents and estate agents add vat and margin. - then are really bad payers. Why should I wait months for payment?

Fair enough, but that's a totally different issue.

Mind you, there are greater sufferers than you. One of my daughters is a barrister who does quite a lot of legal aid work - and it seems that 'bad payers' do not come any 'badder' than whatever government department is meant to be doing that paying - 'a year or two' seems to be probably about average, but she is currently waiting for them to pay her for work she completed about 6 years ago!

 

[ebee]

Bad payers and penny pinchers are bad news for any trade, I have always avoided them, I have never competed in a race to the bottom on prices.
In My Humble Opinion my customers get and pay for a decent service, whether it`s just adding a socket or rewiring a house or installing a burglar alarm or conducting any form of I & T including an EICR.
You get my services you pays for my services, I never intend to rip people off with shoddy work or high prices but the rate for the job is the rate for the job.
I never set out to be the cheapest, I never set out to pass or fail something, I never follow am non competent customer or their agent telling me that their electrical installation is ok and not requiring correcting.
I advise them of my opinion in what I consider a fair and decent manner .
I do not want a customer who invites a "competitive price" or a "cheap job to get better jobs later" or who tries to tell me what the job should be or how much it should cost.
I do not like agents/managers telling me that a previous EICR or EIC gives a recommended next test date then states that "I know for a fact that a further timescale is allowed on such" - example say if the EICR inspector has given a home a 3 year recommendation and insist that it should be 5 years etc, I ask what qualifications/experience/competence allows them to override the inspector.
I ask them why they have no confidence in their chosen inspector sometimes.

 

[Murdochcat]

Indeed - and those are the ones who I would hope would 'lose their licences to do EICRs) as fast as they got them, if a system such as I suggested was implemented

That’s never going to happen

Fair enough, but that's a totally different issue.

No it’s not. When you run a business you avoid customers who are poor or late payers

Mind you, there are greater sufferers than you.

Nonsense. Those are very poorly run businesses