EICR FI faults holding up Satisfactory certificate.

[MarkyofftheMark]

Just had an EICR, and the tester won't provide a satisfactory certificate until FI faults are corrected. These mainly consist of locating circuits that they didn't test.
On the last EICR that took place at my site (17th edition) I recall the rectification of C1 and C2 faults being sufficient. Is this correct?

many thanks

Mark

 

[JBW175]

FI means further investigation required and gives rise to an unsatisfactory report.

The FI codes will need investigating as could give rise to further works that require remedial action before a satisfactory report can be issued.

 

[Tom 256]

Yes an F.I. code warrants an unsatisfactory yet are the matters described above worthy of a F.I. code?

F.I. = where on inspection an issue has revealed a possible problem that due to limitations cannot despite all best efforts be fully inspected at that time and on further investigation could well reveal a C1 or C2.

What was it about those circuits not checked due to limitations that gave reason to believe there could be a C1 or C2 fault present?

 

[Tom 256]

QUOTE: The FI codes will need investigating as could give rise to further works that require remedial action before a satisfactory report can be issued.

No EICR should be being done with a view to remedial works!

That pattern of thought needs to stop.

 

[Risteard]

Yes an F.I. code warrants an unsatisfactory yet are the matters described above worthy of a F.I. code?

F.I. = where on inspection an issue has revealed a possible problem that due to limitations cannot despite all best efforts be fully inspected at that time and on further investigation could well reveal a C1 or C2.

What was it about those circuits not checked due to limitations that gave reason to believe there could be a C1 or C2 fault present?

If the circuits couldn't be identified then FI seems entirely fair.

 

[Spoon]

QUOTE: The FI codes will need investigating as could give rise to further works that require remedial action before a satisfactory report can be issued.

No EICR should be being done with a view to remedial works!

That pattern of thought needs to stop.

@JBW175 quote "The FI codes will need investigating as could give rise to further works that require remedial action before a satisfactory report can be issued." is correct. He didn't specify that the 'further work' needs to be carried out by the person doing the test. That's the way a read it.
I suppose it just depends on how you read it..

EDIT: Don't get me wrong mate. I totally agree with you that "No EICR should be being done with a view to remedial works!" being carried out by the tester.

 

[newfutile]

I have been known to disconnect untraceable circuits to complete a satisfactory EICR , it maybe an idea to leave these circuits switched off for a week or so and see if it causes any problems .

 

[Tom256]

If the circuits couldn't be identified then FI seems entirely fair.

An electrical installation does not in itself become unsafe for continued use because an inspector can't identify a circuit.

 

[rewireIT]

An electrical installation does not in itself become unsafe for continued use because an inspector can't identify a circuit.

Who said it was unsafe? Fi means further investigation. Nothing implies unsafe.

 

[Tom256]

Who said it was unsafe? Fi means further investigation. Nothing implies unsafe.

As I said earlier in this thread:
Quote:
F.I. = where on inspection an issue has revealed a possible problem that due to limitations cannot despite all best efforts be fully inspected at that time and on further investigation could well reveal a C1 or C2.

What was it about those circuits not checked due to limitations that gave reason to believe there could be a C1 or C2 fault present?

End quote


What's the difference between a limitation, an operational limitation and a Further investigation code?

 

[newfutile]

I have traced unknown circuits that have ended in a cut cable with C1 code due to live parts , if you don’t know what the circuit does you cant say it’s safe

 

[Tom 256]

I have traced unknown circuits that have ended in a cut cable with C1 code due to live parts , if you don’t know what the circuit does you cant say it’s safe

Yes of course because you traced the circuit. That is the point of the inspection - to report on the condition of the electrical installation.
Such takes time and requires that circuits be identified. That is the duty we hold to the client. It is why EICR's cant be 10 minutes in the building to take a picture of the board then fill the rest in once back in the van.

A Further Investigation entry leads to an inspector declaring this electrical installation is not safe for continued use. That should not be because the inspector needs to be away... what with 8 EICR's to do today there ain't time for a proper inspection and report.

 

[Tom 256]

Yes of course because you traced the circuit. That is the point of the inspection - to report on the condition of the electrical installation.
Such takes time and requires that circuits be identified. That is the duty we hold to the client. It is why EICR's cant be 10 minutes in the building to take a picture of the board then fill the rest in once back in the van.

A Further Investigation entry leads to an inspector declaring this electrical installation is not safe for continued use. That should not be because the inspector needs to be away... what with 8 EICR's to do today there ain't time for a proper inspection and report.

and of course that cable traced could have been wonderfully terminated in text book style. It is why we trace and not just put F.I. < cos No Time

 

[littlespark]

another year old thread successfully resurrected.

 

[Tom 256]

another year old thread successfully resurrected

Absolutely and your point is ?