New Extension - Cert for building Regs required

Yes! Just to update, as suggested I phoned planning a claimed innocence. They said they would accept an EICR. It was a bit of a challange, the first 2-3 sparky's I called wouldn't do an EICR on work they hadn't done, but i eventually found someone who peformed an EICR. Got cert and gave it to planning. Completion cert was then issued.

Glad sorted, seems @JohnW2 was correct and you had not done the work complying with the regulations, I did do a quick search and it seems £95 per week to hire test equipment.
 
Sponsored Links
Yes! Just to update, as suggested I phoned planning a claimed innocence. They said they would accept an EICR. but i eventually found someone who peformed an EICR. Got cert and gave it to planning. Completion cert was then issued.
Great news. Thanks for the update. However ...
It was a bit of a challange, the first 2-3 sparky's I called wouldn't do an EICR on work they hadn't done ....
If those initial sparkies really understood that you were asking for an EICR (and not an EIC), then they must have been plain daft, and you are therefore probably well off not having got involved with them.

It is very true that they shouldn't (and most wouldn't) issue an EIC for work they hadn't done (or, at least, 'supervised'). However, an EICR is a totally different kettle of fish, which has nothing to do with what work has been done, and who has done it - it is merely an inspection and testing of the installation 'as it is', and is very commonly undertaken by someone who has never previously been anywhere near the installation!

Maybe there was a misunderstanding of EIC vs. EICR?

Kind Regards, John
 
Glad sorted, seems @JohnW2 was correct and you had not done the work complying with the regulations, I did do a quick search and it seems £95 per week to hire test equipment.
That sounds credible, but hiring the equipment is only of use if one knows how to use it, what to use it on and how to interpret the results - which may or may not have been the case for the OP.

Kind Regards, John
 
@JohnW2 is correct, an EIC has to follow the regulations, and the person filling it in signs to say they have followed the regulations, however an EICR no longer reports when current regulations have not been followed, that was in it some 10 years ago, as code 4, but today the inspector can recommend upgrades, but to fail it needs to be dangerous (code C1) or potentially dangerous (code C2) or some thing has stopped the inspection (code FI). However the form is very similar to the EIC and my LABC would ask the inspector to inspect as if a new installation and note any departures from current regulations. As a result the LABC would engage the inspector, not the house holder.

For an inspector not to note any dangerous or potentially dangerous items he can be taken to court, and there have been cases, but if he notes items but codes them as code C3 i.e. recommendation not potentially dangerous, there is little that can be done, it is a personal opinion using his skill, so he could pass an installation with no RCD protection or wrong RCD protection.

Scheme providers can authorise members to do an EICR under the scheme, and issue the paperwork on different coloured paper to when not done under the scheme, so if the LABC wanted an EICR done covered by the scheme provider then many electricians could not have done it.
 
Sponsored Links
I think OP was possibly too honest with the electricians ('hello, I've rewired my house & BC want an EICR on it, can you do it')...
 
@JohnW2 is correct, an EIC has to follow the regulations, and the person filling it in signs to say they have followed the regulations ...
One thing we have been overlooking is that an EIC allows for different people to sign in relation to the three activities - design, construction and inspection/testing. Hence, give or take potential issues relating to 'inspection' of things (lie 'buried wiring') that ceases to be available for inspection, there would seem to be no reason why one person cannot undertake the design sand construction (and 'sign for them') and then for a different person to (perhaps 'subsequently') undertake (and 'sign for') the inspection/testing ...

upload_2022-1-31_23-58-0.png


For an inspector not to note any dangerous or potentially dangerous items he can be taken to court, and there have been cases, but if he notes items but codes them as code C3 i.e. recommendation not potentially dangerous, there is little that can be done, it is a personal opinion using his skill ...
I'm not so sure about that. Although such prosecutions are as rare ans hen's teeth, I think it could theoretically happen if someone coded as C3 something which clearly was dangerous (hence should have been given a C1) or maybe only even 'potentially dangerous' (C2). As you say, the personal opinion reflected in the coding is reliant on skill and, if it ever got to court, I would imagine that the court would have expectations as regards the degree of skill/competence' that had been exercised.

Kind Regards, John
 
I think OP was possibly too honest with the electricians ('hello, I've rewired my house & BC want an EICR on it, can you do it')...
Yes, I suspect that might well be the case. However, so long as what they did, and provided the paperwoprk for, was an EICR, then I don't see why an electrician should not do just that (and take an appropriate amount of money for doing it!).

As I said, only if the OP had asked them to provide an EIC (in relation to someone else's work) would I expect electricians to be unprepared to do it.

Kind Regards, John
 
The PIR and EICR have been required for years under the HSE to ensure our work places are safe, there has always been some leeway as some times turning things off is more dangerous to leaving them on, had this with an e-stop which when pressed dumped all air allowing a rail transport system to drop. It had to be modified so only some of the system dumped air.

I have done so many inspections testing gate switches actually stopped machines etc, with a far more complex inspection to what would be done in the home, and we have to remember the EICR is not domestic only. In some cases the report will be the basis for a discussion as to best option, and it may only report and not give recommendations, the extent of the report will vary, and the electrical supervisor or owner can select what he wants, I was often given a list of what to check, micro switches, residual current monitor (RCM) etc.

Even in the home the owner may select what is included, with this tread very likely the EICR was not for whole house but just the new installation for example. We should include the limitations in the report, there is even a code for it LIM, and of course one inspector may use LIM and another FI for the same item.

I think code C1 no one would argue much about, but potentially dangerous not so cut and dried, I wonder what code would be given to a safety switch of the wrong colour? This is what caused my accident, a black micro switch was removed, had it been the correct colour red or yellow it would not have been removed, so in hind sight wrong colour should get a code C2. It was poor design as could not raise the lid of the recycling machine without damaging switch, so switch removed to prevent damage.

However the point is the EICR is commissioned to high light dangers due to the condition deteriorating over time with domestic, and if installed to regulations current at the time it was installed, then there is really no requirement to code. We may mention some point which today is not considered appropriate any more, and may even code it as code C3, but we in essence do as we are told, and if my electrical supervisor says give so and so a quick once over to see any obvious faults, that is what I would do, and if he said we are due for a visit by HSE go over so and so with a fine tooth comb looking for faults then again that is what I would do. He who pays the piper calls the tune, which is why when LABC wanted to have an EICR for work I was to do, they selected and paid the inspector, and I was to pay them. As it transpired he changed his mind and accepted my EIC.
 
However the point is the EICR is commissioned to high light dangers due to the condition deteriorating over time with domestic, and if installed to regulations current at the time it was installed, then there is really no requirement to code.
As often discussed, it is very often impossible for an inspector to know when, and under which regulations, aspects of the work were installed, so they would often not be able to apply that criterion.

Also, it far from necessarily the case that domestic EICRs are only undertaken to detect 'deteriorations over time'- even if the past history of the installation is known (which it often isn't). Particularly when EICRs are undertaken on behalf of prospective buyers, they quite often identify 'horrors' which have probably existed for a very long time, and would probably never have been compliant with any regulations!

Kind Regards, John
 
I did say
if installed to regulations current at the time it was installed
Which I included as yes often specially with domestic it has never complied.
You did but, as I said, I was responding to your saying:
... the point is the EICR is commissioned to high light dangers due to the condition deteriorating over time with domestic
... which I said, and you are now seemingly agreeing is not necessarily the case, since the installation (on which a domestic EICR is undertaken) may never have been compliant with any edition of the regs.

Kind Regards, John
 
Even in the home the owner may select what is included, with this tread very likely the EICR was not for whole house but just the new installation for example. We should include the limitations in the report, there is even a code for it LIM, and of course one inspector may use LIM and another FI for the same item.

A LIM means there is an agreement between the client and the inspector that the item is out of scope for the inspection. AN FI means the inspector cannot inspect or test the item, but believes there is an issue. LIM and FI are nor the same thing.

However the point is the EICR is commissioned to high light dangers due to the condition deteriorating over time with domestic, and if installed to regulations current at the time it was installed, then there is really no requirement to code.

You regularly post this and it is wrong. An inspection is commissioned to determine whether the installation is safe to use or not. This is done by inspecting and testing the installation, comparing the findings against the edition of BS7671 in force on the day the inspection is carried out. The inspector issue an EICR which shows the findings. If an item complies with BS7671 it is ticked. If it is not, the inspector decides the required code. The old C4 which you seem to obsess about had no purposes, as it highlighted a non-compliance which requires no remedial action. We now just ignore this non-compliance. As an inspector we may refer to the BPG, or any other publication, but the only book that matters is BS7671 (along with our experience) to decide whether the non-compliance deserves a 1,2 or 3 code.
 
You regularly post this and it is wrong. An inspection is commissioned to determine whether the installation is safe to use or not.
As I wrote to eric myself, I totally agree.
This is done by inspecting and testing the installation, comparing the findings against the edition of BS7671 in force on the day the inspection is carried out.
I agree that such is 'the spirit', and presumable 'the intention'. However, as you will have seen, eric is trying to 'be clever' by looking at the actual wording of the 'current' versions of Approved Document P. The current version applicable in Wales says that compliance with the 'fundamental principles' of Part P can be satisfied by compliance with the requirements of BS7671:2001, and the current version applicable in England says the same but referring to BS7671:2008 - so he's trying to argue that an EICR in Wales only needs to refer to the requirements of BS7671:2001, and one in England to the requirements of BS7671:2008.

I would say that not enough thinking went into the wording of these Approved Documents, and that both should refer to "the edition of BS7671 current at the time in question" in order to reflect what was probably their intention.
... The old C4 which you seem to obsess about had no purposes, as it highlighted a non-compliance which requires no remedial action. We now just ignore this non-compliance.
Technically speaking, that's changed a bit because of the rather strange definition of "non-compliance" that has crept into BS7671. We now cannot "ignore non-compliance", since "non-compliance" is now defined as meaning a non-conformity which results in danger (hence C1 or C2). The 'failure to correspond with the requirements of BS7671' (but without resulting in any danger), which used to be C4, is now regarded by BS7671 as a "non-conformity" but not "non-compliance". It may not be intended to make sense :)

Kind Regards, John
 
i commented on the EICR details Eric stated and Part P has no interest in inspections. As for installation, there will be an EIC and this has the edition of BS7671 on it. This will be the edition in effect when the job was certified. I agree it would be so much clearer for Part P to state the work should comply with the current edition of BS7671.

When i said we ignore items, i was only referring to items which used to have a C4. We don't record these as there is no reason a client would make any changes there.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top