EICR ....I was amazed !

[Luke238]

Hello,

I am by no means an expert but having just successfully completed my 2391-52 I was interested to be passed this EICR and see some of the observations.

I have removed the inspectors details but he/they are NICEIC approved contractors and have been in the industry for many years.

I appreciate that it is the inspector who makes an assessment of all the defects and reports and categorises them as he see's fit but we are given guidance as to what should be a C1.

No RCD protection is often discussed on this forum and I am aware that if the installation has no RCD protection but all supp bonding is in place then its a C3. If there is no RCD protection and no supp bonding then its a C2.

This installation has reportedly got supp bonding but no RCD so has been coded C1 ??

No isolator switch on cooker circuit C1 !! . I wasnt aware that it needed an isolator switch, I understood it needed a means of safe isolation which could be at the CU at the MCB albeit inconvenient.

 

[ipf]

I have just got an eicr from a landlord, she has a number of hmos. I will be doing the first eicr in a fortnight - got 8 students in it and quite large, was a former refuge for domestic abused women. I said to her with the report i include images and the regulation relevant to the coding. And am happy to meet her at the house to walk through the findings.
I will quote for any remedials and encourage her to get other quotes for peace of mind. If she goes elsewhere then thats okay. Likewise i would do the work if she wants to go ahead.
She said im the first electrician to actually work like that. Said previous ones had literally just walked around the house and didnt test a lot of stuff as the communal areas such as hallway, all entrances and by the cu which was in cupboard with washing machines etc all had cctv in. Cover came off for all of 30 minutes.
Said the report had limitations, not verified and results completely different to previous reports which were all near enough the same.
She reported him to elecsa who said as he is not approved for eicrs with them and didnt use logo then there is nothing they can do other than write a letter saying go careful. She refused to pay invoice and he got aggressive. He is now a multi trade outfit doing full refurbs!! Apparently fully qualified plumber, electrician and general builder all by the age of 28!!
An eicr is only as good as the person doing it and how much time, skill and effort they use.

Fair do's for that, Gav. If you want the work, I hope you get it, at a fair price, of course. I just hope you're lucky with the landlord and she realises what's involved and is prepared to pay for it.
As you know, lots of landlords involved couldn't care less and just want something with a logo and signature....so they can get the cash coming in.
We had some remedials at a very high class golf club, with some very famous members, after a T+I by a major, nationally known company. They did the absolute minimum and really made a pig's ear of it. All seventy odd pages were put together very professionally.....probably by an accounts clerk.

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

I will say thanks to the OP for posting this. The more EICR’s or codings we share the better I think. It seems the norm for a bit of healthy discussion as to what code to give. The regs can be ambiguous and open to interpretation to a point - but this report is way off - C1 happy.

C1 is of course ‘immediate danger’ - which to me suggests ‘turn it off NOW!’

- saying that I do give C1’s for things like missing blanks in consumer units - as this seems to be the suggested code, but hesitate in giving that coding as it seems less likely that someone will get hurt than an exposed live cable end close to a child’s sand-pit.

Perhaps the person carrying out the report was working to 18th edition ‘new installation’ standards, and forgetting that the installation only needs to be compliant with the regs at the time of install? That might explain some of it?
Who knows.

 

[Luke238]

It gives me the impression it was a slap dash inspection with little time spent reviewing his results. I have asked the client for a copy of the quote for the remedial work as I expect that it will be crazy high

The report refers to a beeping from the hard wired smoke alarms, my experience suggests that the battery needs replacing. Probably quicker to replace the battery than write up the observation although not as lucrative !

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

It gives me the impression it was a slap dash inspection with little time spent reviewing his results. I have asked the client for a copy of the quote for the remedial work as I expect that it will be crazy high

The report refers to a beeping from the hard wired smoke alarms, my experience suggests that the battery needs replacing. Probably quicker to replace the battery than write up the observation although not as lucrative !

Agree with that - I’d carry out that complex ‘further investigation’ - and put a battery in!

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Global I.R. testing too, lazy and sloppy IMO, and a Ze of 0.12 ohms obtained 'by enquiry' ?? The local DNO must be really on the case there eh.

I don't agree that Global IR testing is lazy and sloppy. Often on EICR's disconnecting neutrals for a particular circuit is difficult at best, sometimes nigh on impossible, particularly as it is best practice to test and inspect with as little dismantling and disturbance as is reasonable. If a global IR test gives a satisfactory reading then all final circuits will have been verified as having a satisfactory IR reading. That is the purpose of an EICR. A blanket statement that global testing is lazy and sloppy simply does not take into account site conditions.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

Fair do's for that, Gav. If you want the work, I hope you get it, at a fair price, of course. I just hope you're lucky with the landlord and she realises what's involved and is prepared to pay for it.
As you know, lots of landlords involved couldn't care less and just want something with a logo and signature....so they can get the cash coming in.
We had some remedials at a very high class golf club, with some very famous members, after a T+I by a major, nationally known company. They did the absolute minimum and really made a pig's ear of it. All seventy odd pages were put together very professionally.....probably by an accounts clerk.

Banes council are actually cracking down on hmo standards. As they all come up for relicensing they are looking at the previous eicr and then the new one. Any major differences are being queried. Somebody in the council knows the basics it seems. Also the fire brigade are being very strict on the fire alarm systems. Fire doors etc..
I have been told by other landlord that the case officers have on the quiet suggested decent electricians for eicrs.
As they know some are just cowboys.
I wont jeopardise the good reputation i am building up on iffy eicrs and slap dash paperwork.

 

[Dave OCD]

I don't agree that Global IR testing is lazy and sloppy. Often on EICR's disconnecting neutrals for a particular circuit is difficult at best, sometimes nigh on impossible, particularly as it is best practice to test and inspect with as little dismantling and disturbance as is reasonable. If a global IR test gives a satisfactory reading then all final circuits will have been verified as having a satisfactory IR reading. That is the purpose of an EICR. A blanket statement that global testing is lazy and sloppy simply does not take into account site conditions.

I take your point there and can see that I was probably looking over critical but with the general poor quality of the report in question the global IR testing just reinforced my opinion of it.
But if you're filling in the same readings for all circuits that share a neutral bar you're going with the poorest reading of all the circuits [although it may well be an acceptable reading] and the individual circuit results filled in will be mostly incorrect.
Sorry I'd rather stick to doing the job thoroughly.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I take your point there and can see that I was probably looking over critical but with the general poor quality of the report in question the global IR testing just reinforced my opinion of it.
But if you're filling in the same readings for all circuits that share a neutral bar you're going with the poorest reading of all the circuits [although it may well be an acceptable reading] and the individual circuit results filled in will be mostly incorrect.
Sorry I'd rather stick to doing the job thoroughly.

When I do a global test I don't fill in the reading on each individual circuit, I state in the extent of work that the IR reading for DBXXX is a global reading and put the result on the first circuit test result in the schedule.
Not aimed at you Dave, but there is an awful lot of testicles talked about IR tests on EICR's from some electricians. I had a conversation with one recently in CEF, he insisted he always does a full IR test on every circuit, which would include a test between live conductors. So he goes round and disconnects the 25 transformers in the kitchen downlights before testing does he......because if he doesn't he's going to get 0.00 megohms......yeah right. Like I said, utter testicles.
If I'm faced with a birds nest and none of the neutrals are in any order I make no apology for doing a global, it makes sense.

 

[MG201]

I will say thanks to the OP for posting this. The more EICR’s or codings we share the better I think. It seems the norm for a bit of healthy discussion as to what code to give. The regs can be ambiguous and open to interpretation to a point - but this report is way off - C1 happy.

C1 is of course ‘immediate danger’ - which to me suggests ‘turn it off NOW!’

- saying that I do give C1’s for things like missing blanks in consumer units - as this seems to be the suggested code, but hesitate in giving that coding as it seems less likely that someone will get hurt than an exposed live cable end close to a child’s sand-pit.

Perhaps the person carrying out the report was working to 18th edition ‘new installation’ standards, and forgetting that the installation only needs to be compliant with the regs at the time of install? That might explain some of it?
Who knows.

forgetting that the installation only needs to be compliant with the regs at the time of install? I find this a bit confusing af if installs only need to comply with rules at time of install does that imply that all previous regulations need to be learned, eg a 24 year old needs to learn what the regs were in 16th editions??

 

[remedial]

i believe the only requirement for an eicr to be "satisfactory" is that it must be safe for continued use

 

[freddo]

My grandmothers house was wired to the 13th edition to a very high standard. There are no CPCs in the switch drops and no RCDs on either the normal or off peak supplies. The wiring has not been altered since installation with the exception of replacing 2 light fittings and 2 worn sockets. Supplementary bonding is installed in the bathroom and kitchen and main bonding is installed to the water supply. The 3036 holders all have the correct size wires in them. Loop readings all good.

If I lived there, the only thing I'd bother changing would be swapping the garage and summer house sockets for a RCD sockets as they both supply equipment outside (lawnmower). And I'm sure my 94 year old grandmother won't want the bother of a rewire...

 

[MG201]

Rcd sockets are a great example these could be used more rather than the alternative used eg sorry Mrs you need a new board but we know why that’s done ££

 

[freddo]

A pair of new consumer units would certainly improve the safety of the installation though. But I would not consider the existing installation dangerous.

 

[freddo]

There is another thread on another forum about a similar shyte EICR.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Global I.R. testing too, lazy and sloppy IMO, and a Ze of 0.12 ohms obtained 'by enquiry' ?? The local DNO must be really on the case there eh.

Possibly lazy, but I'm not sure about sloppy. I 'occasionally' do a global IR test and if it is >2MΩ I wont IR each circuit separately, usually I do but not always. Depends a bit on your pre-EICR chat with the customer, time constraints and messiness of the CU. However, the word sloppy applies to just about all of the rest of the report!