Ramifications of a worthless EICR

Come across a few of these recently, EICRs that you're asked for an opinion on and all you can think of is asking if they have a printer that handles soft paper.

Highlights of yesterday's attempt included:

Limited to 30% of final circuits
"Currents (sic) feeding essential items shall not be isolated"
No entry's on "limitations agreed with"
No continuity readings at all - Lims in all R1R2 column.

Generally these docs are held by people who don't understand the document yet are responsible for administering it, building management co's etc.

So if the worst should happen, the defence in a court of law for the person who's duty it was to see that the electrical installation was in safe condition is to wave an EICR at the judge and say my butts covered m'lud.

What happens with such a laughably inadequate document?

The certs I've seen include scheme issued, plus non scheme docs from scheme members, non scheme, and those falsely claiming memberships.

This is what I don’t understand…. If you’re going to falsify documents, then at least fill something into the boxes that make sense.. (joke!)

The “falsely claming membership” is the only one the schemes are actually interested in. So those companies can be reported to the scheme in question and something will be done. Eventually.

All the rest of us can do is educate recipients into what is a “good” report and what isn’t when we come across them.

Teddy Lop said:

So if the worst should happen, the defence in a court of law for the person who's duty it was to see that the electrical installation was in safe condition is to wave an EICR at the judge and say my butts covered m'lud.

What happens with such a laughably inadequate document?

Click to expand...

The Responsible person or duty holder has a solid defence that they relied on an "Expert" to test and issue a document.

The person who falsely / wrecklessly issued a document would be getting a visit and would have to explain how the document came to be.

Just as the Q.S did in the case where Emma Shaw died.

Teddy Lop said:

Come across a few of these recently, EICRs that you're asked for an opinion on and all you can think of is asking if they have a printer that handles soft paper.

Highlights of yesterday's attempt included:

Limited to 30% of final circuits
"Currents (sic) feeding essential items shall not be isolated"
No entry's on "limitations agreed with"
No continuity readings at all - Lims in all R1R2 column.

Generally these docs are held by people who don't understand the document yet are responsible for administering it, building management co's etc.

So if the worst should happen, the defence in a court of law for the person who's duty it was to see that the electrical installation was in safe condition is to wave an EICR at the judge and say my butts covered m'lud.

What happens with such a laughably inadequate document?

The certs I've seen include scheme issued, plus non scheme docs from scheme members, non scheme, and those falsely claiming memberships.

Click to expand...

Nor suggesting that that the rest sounds great, but dead continuity of CPC testing is for initial verification and needn't be employed for periodic inspection and testing. (It should, of course, be agreed as a limitation and notarised as such though.)

I have walked away from employment with employers who were enabling fraudulent reports of this sort to stand. Integrity for me is everything. I could give so many examples so much so I am tempted to write an article based on such.

Electrical reports of this type are driven by a culture and that culture needs people to ever more feed into it and enable it to grow.

Refused one offer of employment because this nationwide company with a nice, newly awarded, social housing contract wanted [at least] three EICR's a day done and report sent in. I told them I cannot do that find someone else to be part of the deception.
Many social housing landlords [councils] are behind with testing their housing stock so should someone come along and agree to do them they want 'testers' doing 3 / 4 / 5 + per day. Easy money, think of the bonuses ££££££££££

Not just social housing, industrial / commercial also. In one job, embedded maintenance, it was suggested and indeed was the way that when doing P.I.T. it is best not to find any C1 / C2's because we will have to put them right. They would spend the day going home so why make work for yourself by finding issues. They get paid either way. Fill in the form and lets go find somewhere to hide. Stick it.

The generally 'dumbing down' taking place again enabled by 'competency' schemes. No need for depth of knowledge with an Internet search engine that will support your bias.

Always the same reply when challenged as to validity, that being "it's his name on it not mine"

When the guy who compiled the report is asked what will he do if it goes to a coroner because someone died?
The reply "I will say it was not like that when I tested it" "Bit like an MOT innit'... Only good for the time tested"

I then read questions and see answers to testing issues and I honestly just sit back shaking my head. "Why are you even touching this" my only thought.
I am at the point now where I will answer with a pointer in the right direction but from there do your own education.
The industry is in a mess (another thread perhaps) and such is being accepted as "just how it is".
It is disgusting.

When I did the [latest] revision of the 2391-52 it was quite a wake up to the lack of knowledge that seems to be the way.
The instructor asked questions and yet the answers given! This is a course that was always intended for experience Electricians yet that was not what I saw that week. On the first day I honestly thought as I listened "are you lot winding me up"

I did my 2400 many moons ago and decided to do the 2391-52 earlier in the year. Out of a class of about twenty less than half had any idea about testing and I spent most of the week helping them as the tutor spent most of the time playing on his phone. When I did my 2400 early in the 90s few people did the testing but now it is like a free for all.
Back to the OP 30% testing is not uncommon as the client requests it and being asked not to isolate certain parts or circuits but it must be noted in the agreed Limitations and any other restrictions found when testing in the Operational Limitations.
Fixed testing has gone down the route of PAT and driven into the gutter by large companies cutting each other's throats to get the jobs.

westward10 said:

the 90s few people did the testing but now it is like a free for all.

Click to expand...

Could not have said it better.

At one time the guys who came on to the site to inspect were almost revered for the knowledge and Integrity to the craft .

D.E.I. ? perhaps I don't know yet it has changed and, which is more, it has been widely accepted.

Westward you are correct it has become a free for all where good inspectors are often really not required or wanted. Time is Money right?

snowhead said:

The Responsible person or duty holder has a solid defence that they relied on an "Expert" to test and issue a document.

The person who falsely / wrecklessly issued a document would be getting a visit and would have to explain how the document came to be.

Just as the Q.S did in the case where Emma Shaw died.

Click to expand...

Hmm. The problem is the document in this instance isn't false, it's just limited to the point of worthlessness.

If I sell you car insurance which in the small print has a load of limitations that render it void 75% of the time, how much is it your responsibility to read and understand the document?

Don't get me wrong here, I believe the purchaser in both instances shouldn't have to be an expert in understanding a document and the vendor in both to be fraudulent, but the law says ignorance is no defence, and people do go to jail because such.

Also theres an element of professional buyer - BT ran a nasty little scam a few years back that targeted tradies such as you and I with high pressure sales tactics on the basis that consumer protection doesn't apply to business as they should have educated/expert purchasers, unlike the hoi polloi. BT customer street it was called. Proper parasites but there's a reasonable theory a long way behind it - if your job is purchasing hundreds of an item, the idea that you understand that item better than Joe bloggs is a reasonable expectation, and that you should understand it enough to spot an obvious dud?

Total disclosure for y'all, this EICR I've just been sent was for one block of a large site I quoted for a few months back, bit of a basket case with no records, dozens of crusty old switch fuses and fuse boards and my quote was pretty reflective, TBH I'm not mega keen to tackle it. That the property manager of the large "award winning" outfit has found cheaper doesn't suprise me, although being copied in on the result with no covering was perhaps by error on her part. I don't want to appear unprofessional and muck raking of the "opposition" is rarely a good look but I feel a friendly heads up is the decent thing to do - I'm thinking "Hi *****, hope you understand the implications of all the limitations on that, happy to chat if you like"

Thoughts?

The longer I’ve been in the trade the more adamant I become that EICRs should only be carried out by electricians who are extremely competent in testing and extremely well versed in BS7671 and its requirements. I’d even go as far as to say you should have to pass an entirely different course to allow you to do them.

As someone else has alluded to above, the testing and inspection course these days is very close to becoming a “turn up for the week and you’ll pass” type of affair. I remember sitting mine 10+ year ago and the tutor being overly helpful to the point where you’re thinking, you might as well just sit the test for them mate. Walking past people’s computer monitors saying things like “are you sure question 4 is answer B and not D?”

If you’re an installation electrician who is capable of testing his own work and knowing how it should be installed to meet current regulations that’s perfectly fine. But for that same electrician to also find themselves to be qualified to carry out an EICR on a 10+ year old property where regulations have changed numerous times since the original installation date and therefore needing to have a good idea of how the regs differed at the time, I find that mad. I’ll include myself in that bracket as well by the way which is one of the reasons I don’t carry out EICRs!

Take for example an 18 year old who has just passed his inspection and testing exam, gets sent by his gaffer to carry out an EICR on an old property with rewireabke fuses. How’s he gonna cope with that? Probably wouldn’t have a Scooby!

Meh, you can propose courses and qualifications but the problem is the broader societal race to the bottom where too little of the industry is trying to protect itself.

Without wanting to throw open an adjacent can of worms I asked my nic inspector how someone only able to present awkward ponglish on a EICR could possibly have the ability to reference current regs never mind knowledge of superceded historical allowances and practices for which there is no source but "you had to be there". He replied "no comment"

Risteard said:

Nor suggesting that that the rest sounds great, but dead continuity of CPC testing is for initial verification and needn't be employed for periodic inspection and testing. (It should, of course, be agreed as a limitation and notarised as such though.)

Click to expand...

The schedule of results on the EICR does state "All circuits - at least one column to be completed", I've never done a 2391 or worked much alongside others doing EICR/PIR's so there may be minutia of which I'm unaware, but I'd wager blanket limiting them out across an entire report to be somewhat south of optimal by any recognised standards

Teddy Lop said:

The schedule of results on the EICR does state "All circuits - at least one column to be completed"

Click to expand...

I can't see this on the model IET forms, are you using 3rd party forms?

Teddy Lop said:

The schedule of results on the EICR does state "All circuits - at least one column to be completed", I've never done a 2391 or worked much alongside others doing EICR/PIR's so there may be minutia of which I'm unaware, but I'd wager blanket limiting them out across an entire report to be somewhat south of optimal by any recognised standards

Click to expand...

One of the boxes is necessary for verifying dead continuity readings. But you need to consider whether dead continuity testing is required in an already energised installation. Indeed Guidance Note 3 directly addresses this. You are there to assess the safety of the existing electrical installation, and not to perform a box-filling exercise. It's required for initial verification as the installation shouldn't be energised if it isn't all Earthed. That becomes a moot point once the installation has already been energised, and continuity can then legitimately be demonstrated by other means (i.e. live testing).

Risteard said:

One of the boxes is necessary for verifying dead continuity readings. But you need to consider whether dead continuity testing is required in an already energised installation. Indeed Guidance Note 3 directly addresses this. You are there to assess the safety of the existing electrical installation, and not to perform a box-filling exercise. It's required for initial verification as the installation shouldn't be energised if it isn't all Earthed. That becomes a moot point once the installation has already been energised, and continuity can then legitimately be demonstrated by other means (i.e. live testing).

Click to expand...

But doesn’t that mean you’re assuming all earthing is adequate when you arrive when it might not be which is often the case?