EICR - made me laugh

[sponge23]

One of my friends has recently moved down to Dorset (from London). Had an EICR carried out by a sparks down there as it’s a bit out of my catchment area (Kent..).

He asked me to have a look at said report.

There are several things that annoy/make me laugh about this report that was done.
Let’s see if you guys notice the same things.





Edit - When posting such things, please remove personally identifiable information. I have removed the offending image which contained the test results and the name of the person who carried out the inspection. Please do not post it again. Thanks SC

 

[DPG]

Apostrophes used in plurals

 

[davesparks]

Was this paid for by the person selling the house?
I ask because to my mind it looks like it has been deliberately coded lightly to create a satisfactory report when it should really have been unsatisfactory.

 

[Risteard]

So there's no connection of the main protective bonding conductor to the pipework, and yet this is apparently only a C3 observation - and not only that, but the bonding connection has been verified on the schedule. What confused nonsense.

The rest's not a whole lot better. "Requires rewiring". What's wrong with it - not what's the solution? It's a crap report.

Next inspection and reason left blank but detailed in a comments box elsewhere.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Those IR are all over the place not line to line then.

 

[Deleted account]

Needs rewiring?
This should be additional information in the form of advice as to rectify a non compliance, dangerous or potentially dangerous situation.

What is the actual issue? We don’t know because it hasn’t been put in the report.

These reports really get my goat. Clearly they don’t understand the concept of an EICR.

Just state the facts. What you actually find without predudice. Simple.

You can then go on to give advice on rectification if you really need to on a separate document.

Don’t do EICR reports if you don’t understand this.

Sadly not the worst I’ve seen. In fact probably one of the better ones in a bad bunch.

rant over.

 

[sponge23]

Was this paid for by the person selling the house?
I ask because to my mind it looks like it has been deliberately coded lightly to create a satisfactory report when it should really have been unsatisfactory.

“Recommended by the estate agent”...

 

[davesparks]

“Recommended by the estate agent”...

Yes, probably paid by the estate agent to produce satisfactory reports regardless of the truth.

 

[sponge23]

Here’s my list of grievances...
1) Filled out with a pen. Pretty sure we can do better than this in 2019, looks unprofessional to me.
2) Reason for report: “House sale” - no that’s not how we say it. “Change of occupancy”!
3) As stated by others, very vague observations. I particularly like the one about the garage light: put a lamp in it then or put your tester on the fitting you lazy sod.
4) Test results seem very messy. IR results seem made up to me.
5) There was a covering letter with this report, which again is very vague and doesn’t actually point out what the problems are.

I wish my friend would would have shown me this before he bought the house. Can’t believe that people get paid to produce this rubbish!

 

[Intoelectrics]

Very shoddy, can't even be bothered to write the correction next to the appropriate mistake, i.e the PFC value is next to the Ze and vise versa, numpty springs to mind. The "maybe lamps gone" comment tickled me, what.. off on its holidays?? somewhere nice we hope!

Its most likely been rushed, late Friday afternoon job just to keep the landlord happy. I've seen many like this and some much worse. But it's entertaining non the least.

 

[davesparks]

Here’s my list of grievances...
1) Filled out with a pen. Pretty sure we can do better than this in 2019, looks unprofessional to me.
2) Reason for report: “House sale” - no that’s not how we say it. “Change of occupancy”!
3) As stated by others, very vague observations. I particularly like the one about the garage light: put a lamp in it then or put your tester on the fitting you lazy sod.
4) Test results seem very messy. IR results seem made up to me.
5) There was a covering letter with this report, which again is very vague and doesn’t actually point out what the problems are.

I wish my friend would would have shown me this before he bought the house. Can’t believe that people get paid to produce this rubbish!

This just seems petty and unnecessary.

1) what's wrong with a pen, would you prefer to see it filled out with crayon? Sometimes pen and paper is quicker and easier on site, plus you can sign and hand over the paperwork straight away without having to print it.
2) who are the 'we' who don't say it like that?
Change of occupancy implies a change of tenant rather than of ownership. if you want to be this pedantic then it should be change of ownership or even prospective change of ownership as the house may not have been sold at the time of completing the report. There's nothing wrong with house sale as a reason for the report.
3)I agree
4) they are all pretty clear and legible. Why do you think the IR results are made up? They seem plausible to me, though I suspect some rounding of figures has occurred.

 

[SparkyChick]

Just so there is no ambiguity, I edited the OP to remove an image that contained personally identifiable information of the person who carried out the inspection. Please, when posting such things, always redact personally identifiable information and things like scheme membership numbers, addresses etc.

 

[DPG]

Sparkychick, can you get back to your coding please.

 

[sponge23]

This just seems petty and unnecessary.

1) what's wrong with a pen, would you prefer to see it filled out with crayon? Sometimes pen and paper is quicker and easier on site, plus you can sign and hand over the paperwork straight away without having to print it.
2) who are the 'we' who don't say it like that?
Change of occupancy implies a change of tenant rather than of ownership. if you want to be this pedantic then it should be change of ownership or even prospective change of ownership as the house may not have been sold at the time of completing the report. There's nothing wrong with house sale as a reason for the report.
3)I agree
4) they are all pretty clear and legible. Why do you think the IR results are made up? They seem plausible to me, though I suspect some rounding of figures has occurred.

Yeah agreed, I am. But we’re supposed to be pedantic on these.

The report was posted to my friend. Seems silly to me to do a handwritten one, inconvenient for all involved. I note everything down on paper then type up when I get home.
[automerge]1567441765[/automerge]

Sparkychick, can you get back to your coding please.

Just so there is no ambiguity, I edited the OP to remove an image that contained personally identifiable information of the person who carried out the inspection. Please, when posting such things, always redact personally identifiable information and things like scheme membership numbers, addresses etc.

Thanks

 

[ImpededLoop]

Hard to tell now that the test results page has been removed. Makes a change to see the codings being on the more lenient side rather than dishing out C1's and C2's for non dangerous items.