ECIR requested by the supplier.

[teacherspark]

I have an EICR to do. The customer has said the electricity supplier were due to replace the meter but have not reconnected the installation until they get a 'certificate to say its safe'. They have said they only require dead tests to be preformed (obviously) and no inspection of accessories is required.

This has all been conveyed to me by the customer. So my question is should I just do the dead tests and nothing from the inspection schedule. And make this clear in the agreed limitations. (Again, it is the customer that has requested this, as advised by the electricity supplier)

Senarios...
I see no RCD protection and glance in the bathroom and there is no supp bonding?

I can clearly see that a radial in 2.5mm is protected by a 32A mcb?

I've not been to the property so this is hypothetical (until tomorrow). I was just drafting an email to the client setting out the limitations when I thought I'd seek advice from the masses.

Thanks

 

[Octopus]

You should conduct all the tests and inspections on the EICR except the live tests ........................ unless you agree limitations with the customer .............

 

[westward10]

Supplier asking for an EICR, most unusual.

 

[Octopus]

Supplier asking for an EICR, most unusual.

I've done a couple in the past .............. normally when a property has been disconnected and they want to be sure its safe to reconnect.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Supplier asking for an EICR, most unusual.

I've had it before. House was used as a skunk factory, got raided, meter got conviscated as was bypassed the supplier wouldn't install the meter untill there was an EICR.

 

[buzzlightyear]

some body stealing elec?

 

[westward10]

I stand corrected chaps.

 

[teacherspark]

You should conduct all the tests and inspections on the EICR except the live tests ........................ unless you agree limitations with the customer .............

I understand I should do everything that isn't included under 'agreed limitations' however what I'm saying is that the client is requesting just dead test be performed as per the instruction from the supplier. Therefore the inspection schedule would be a agreed limitation.
It would make the report extremely weak but it is a report based on the needs/requests of the client and the limitations (all of them) would be documented.

If that is the case (above), it doesn't quite seem right that it can be given satisfactory if I see (off the record) that there is a circuit incorrectly protected.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

An EICR is a report on whether the installation is safe for continued use.
If you do not conduct an inspection, then you can’t really say that the installation is safe for continued use.
Reasonable limitations such as not lifting floor boards, or not conducting dead tests on certain circuits that need to be kept energised, is one thing.
A limitation not to even visually inspect the installation is a bit much, makes the EICR virtually worthless.
I would suggest you at the very least visually inspect the installation to look for glaring defects or dangerous conditions, then conduct the dead tests.
Then write a letter detailing what you have inspected and the test results, indicate whether in your opinion the installation is safe to be energised.

I would further suggest you query why the DNO are refusing to energise the installation and perhaps advise that a full inspection and testing is conducted after the installation is energised.

 

[westward10]

Dead tests will give you polarity, earth continuity of cpcs/ main protective bonds and insulation resistance and if these all prove to be satisfactory you have done what you have been asked to do. State the extent of the Report and fill it in accordingly.

 

[buzzlightyear]

I would agree with spin, do the dead test first ,but put on the test sheet
how ever could not test live till full services are energized.
in which you will open a can of worms !

 

[Risteard]

Supplier asking for an EICR, most unusual.

Been asked before when the DNO disconnected due to evidence of meter tampering.

 

[Nigel]

An EICR is a report on whether the installation is safe for continued use.
If you do not conduct an inspection, then you can’t really say that the installation is safe for continued use.
Reasonable limitations such as not lifting floor boards, or not conducting dead tests on certain circuits that need to be kept energised, is one thing.
A limitation not to even visually inspect the installation is a bit much, makes the EICR virtually worthless.
I would suggest you at the very least visually inspect the installation to look for glaring defects or dangerous conditions, then conduct the dead tests.
Then write a letter detailing what you have inspected and the test results, indicate whether in your opinion the installation is safe to be energised.

I would further suggest you query why the DNO are refusing to energise the installation and perhaps advise that a full inspection and testing is conducted after the installation is energised.

I disagree. There is a box especially for detailing what the condition report is for. Put in there “to determine dead installation is safe to be made live by the DNO”.

This then spells out clearly what the report is for and would make it clear why the excessive limitations.

It would aslo make sure the report could not be misused by the owner.

 

[Risteard]

I disagree. There is a box especially for detailing what the condition report is for. Put in there “to determine dead installation is safe to be made live by the DNO”.

This then spells out clearly what the report is for and would make it clear why the excessive limitations.

It would aslo make sure the report could not be misused by the owner.

My Area Engineer recommended also making a note in the EICR that live testing must be carried out upon re-energisation of the supply in order to verify that the installation is indeed in a satisfactory condition. (Obviously otherwise we don't even know if the RCDs operate correctly as an example.)

 

[Nigel]

My Area Engineer recommended also making a note in the EICR that live testing must be carried out upon re-energisation of the supply in order to verify that the installation is indeed in a satisfactory condition. (Obviously otherwise we don't even know if the RCDs operate correctly as an example.)

Not a bad shout.

Could also date the next inspection as the day the DNO energise.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I disagree. There is a box especially for detailing what the condition report is for. Put in there “to determine dead installation is safe to be made live by the DNO”.

This then spells out clearly what the report is for and would make it clear why the excessive limitations.

It would aslo make sure the report could not be misused by the owner.

If you look at the notes for EICRs on the model forms, it clearly states the report is to confirm where reasonably practicable that the installation is in a satisfactory condition for continued service.
If this inspection is to be conducted in accordance with BS7671, the very first thing to be done is to visually inspect the condition of all electrical equipment which is not concealed.

God forbid that after failing to spend 10/15 mins looking round the place and you sign off the installation as being safe to energise, that someone is electrocuted due to bare conductors hanging out of a wall or ceiling, or exposed by a broken socket front plate.
Seriously, are you not going to walk around and count points served, or confirm circuits?

 

[Nigel]

If you look at the notes for EICRs on the model forms, it clearly states the report is to confirm where reasonably practicable that the installation is in a satisfactory condition for continued service.
If this inspection is to be conducted in accordance with BS7671, the very first thing to be done is to visually inspect the condition of all electrical equipment which is not concealed.

God forbid that after failing to spend 10/15 mins looking round the place and you sign off the installation as being safe to energise, that someone is electrocuted due to bare conductors hanging out of a wall or ceiling, or exposed by a broken socket front plate.
Seriously, are you not going to walk around and count points served, or confirm circuits?

Of course you would. In order to complete dead test you would dommost of that anyway.

Is that what is being debated?

 

[buzzlightyear]

i would tell the customer that you will do a dead test .before hand.,
and once energized you do a proper test and cover your a**.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The OP is saying the inspection schedule would be a Limitation.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Is that what is being debated

yeah ,who killed cock robin!

 

[Andy78]

Seen it a few times before, usually goes like this.
Letter received from DNO
"Dead testing MUST be completed and a copy of the test results MUST be made available for the engineer on the day of connection otherwise connection cannot proceed"

Day of connection, to DNO engineer
"Hi mate, got your test results you need"
"My what ?, nah mate I don't need any of that. Where's the head going ?"

 

[Nigel]

The OP is saying the inspection schedule would be a Limitation.

No I agree. It should be done.

 

[Wilko]

So the report is done and let's say that a C2 is found. Would DNO refuse to connect? Assume C3 is ok to connect and C1 not ok. Just wondering

 

[Nigel]

So the report is done and let's say that a C2 is found. Would DNO refuse to connect? Assume C3 is ok to connect and C1 not ok. Just wondering

I assume they will be looking for a ‘satisfactory’ report so no C2s.

 

[baldelectrician]

You could do a EICR dead using R1R2 and IR (where possible), any circuits not passing muster could be left disconnected with the prior agreement of the client (you could make this a condition of the works)
Worst case - they could be left with a install with adequate bonding and 90% of the circuits not connected

From past experience- if it is not connected they deal with it sooner rather than later

 

[baldelectrician]

Forgot to mention I also agree on the RCD limitations mentioned earlier