EICR Limitations

[Breeze]

These are my EICR limitations please can I have your opinion of these and any suggestions of any additional ones
1. As a minimum, 30% of electrical accessories will be visually inspected unless prevented( I.e. Artex ceiling)

2. Zs values inputted will be calculated except socket circuits in order to minimise live working.

3. Loft spaces will not be accessed due the the risk of workin at height unless required to access electrical equipment.

4.DNO fuse I formation not obtained, after attempting to enquire.

5. Intruder alarm system wiring not tested.

6. Central heating wiring and controls not tested however cpc verified at each point.

7. Live to neutral insulation testing omitted in order to minimise risk of damaging equipment,

8. Where a gas cooker is installed within a property the cooker circuit will be tested to the point of insulation only if access to an outlet is prevented by the appliance. This is to eradicate the need to disturb any has appliance.

9. Where a circuit supplies integrate appliance test will be undertaken to the point of isolation only to minimise/ eradicate the risk of damaging equipment.

10. Where a manual handling risk is identified, (ie large kitchen appliance) testing will be undertaken at the point of isolation or where this is not possible will be omitted and listed as an operation limitation.

11. No pat testing of items with a 13amp plug top( note cooker etc should have a minimum of r2 continuity test.

12.on an off peak supply the Zs results will be calculated using the 24h supply Ze.

13. On a circuit with a storage heater the test will be carried out at the point of isolation and r2 continuity verified at the storage heater.

 

[Guest77]

You have to remember Pete health and safety have been heavily involved with everything and anything they can get there hands on, also the NICEIC have agreed these and are happy that the quality of the EICR is not compromised but that's for your concern and I will raise at my next team meeting

Come on now, using health and safety as an excuse to whip around the house only testing ZS at sockets won't wear here, you may as well list what you intend to do rather than the limitations, you are down to half hours work looking at your opening post matey.

 

[Brightspark2]

Apart from the testing or calculating of Zs debate it all looks pretty standard to me.

DILLB to answer your question on why not 100%, you carry out sampling on condition reports, it's how your trained on the 2391 etc. You internally visually inspect a percentage of accessories, if you find issues you increase the percentage, it's industry standard.

 

[Pete999]

You have to remember Pete health and safety have been heavily involved with everything and anything they can get there hands on, also the NICEIC have agreed these and are happy that the quality of the EICR is not compromised but that's for your concern and I will raise at my next team meeting

What has the NICEIC got to do with it after all they are just one of the manyscams

 

[Deleted member 72666]

Apart from the testing or calculating of Zs debate it all looks pretty standard to me.

DILLB to answer your question on why not 100%, you carry out sampling on condition reports, it's how your trained on the 2391 etc. You internally visually inspect a percentage of accessories, if you find issues you increase the percentage, it's industry standard.

.....And if there are no previous records then what?

 

[polo1]

Apart from the testing or calculating of Zs debate it all looks pretty standard to me.

DILLB to answer your question on why not 100%, you carry out sampling on condition reports, it's how your trained on the 2391 etc. You internally visually inspect a percentage of accessories, if you find issues you increase the percentage, it's industry standard.

I agree; others I think are either being tongue-in-cheek or ott in their comments.
AMD 3 expects electrical circuits and accessories (eg down lights) in lofts to be checked on EICRs unless there is a sound reason not to.
It is the case that there is increasing pressure to minimise live testing, and that along with a measured Ze, R1+R2 is used to calculate Zs. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the increasing use of RCDs/RCBOs and therefore no trip testing, the measured results are often very pessimistic.

 

[davesparks]

It is the case that there is increasing pressure to minimise live testing,

What pressure from who? I've not yet experienced any pressure to minimise live testing.

 

[polo1]

What pressure from who? I've not yet experienced any pressure to minimise live testing.

The schemes, HSE & insurers. Maybe encouragement rather than pressure. Tbh, my practice until last year was always to measure Zs, now I mostly calculate.

 

[Plonker 3]

The schemes, HSE & insurers. Maybe encouragement rather than pressure. Tbh, my practice until last year was always to measure Zs, now I mostly calculate.

You got any references from HSE or insurance companies saying that? Not fussed about the scams as they dont really know what they are doing.

 

[Leesparkykent]

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg354.pdf

haven't read it but this is the what the HSE has to say on testing.

 

[polo1]

You got any references from HSE or insurance companies saying that? Not fussed about the scams as they dont really know what they are doing.

I'll have a look at my last PL/PI quote as it was either written there or spoken about at the time of renewal. HSE was verbal - they were on a site I was on in Jan (for another reason!), but were chatting to me when they saw me testing. Commented specifically about measuring Zs at lighting, working off steps.

 

[Plonker 3]

Verbal means nothing. It needs to be printed like the link Lee has posted which says live testing can be carried out.

 

[NDG Elecs]

Whatever has happened to personal responsibility. Let's all not do anything anymore. Yes ok, the HSE have really sharp teeth, but as an electrician carrying out EICRs you have to make the call as to what needs testing and to what extent and also what needs inspecting. If, as an inspector, you feel standing on some steps holding your probes like chopsticks whilst pressing a test button is tricky then maybe get some of the socket and see type fittings that can go into the lamp holders with your test leads plugged in. Foregoing Zs testing due to an artexed ceiling, I mean come on!

I agree with a percentage internal inspection sample rate, with the percentage variable depending on findings.

Looking at the OP again I have mixed up points 1&2 a little, but the conclusion is the same! You should reasonably be able to gain access to the majority of lighting points to test them.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

It isn't limitations! it is extent. There is a key difference.

Extent, this is the amount of the installation you are going to inspect and test, based on agreement with client, and your findings from your initial walkround.

Limitations. this is again agreed with your client, and it covers what you can and can't do, for whatever reasons that maybe. This is your get out clause when your client says "You can't test this or that because", and then next week it all goes bang, you can reply "Nowt to do with me cobber".

It is extremely important that the Extent and Limitations are clearly agreed, understood and recorded, otherwise you leave yourself open to "Where theres a blame theres a claim.

Enjoy :37:

Cheers..................Howard