EICR rectifications completed by another electrician, what now?

[Marcus Vaughan]

Because you can carry out an EICR without doing it, and it doesn’t prove that you have the required level of experience and competence.

Fair enough. Agreed. I get it. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It is really very very simple. The installation becomes satisfactory following an unsatisfactory report issued on the day of the inspection and a paper trail evidencing that the remedials have been carried out in good time.

You are either trolling (which is not even good trolling) or you are desperatly trying to justify your business model of carrying out unnecessary EICRs.

What I’m trying to do, is work out what it is you are saying.
Because you’re about as clear as mud.

Now I have already posted that where an EICR is Unsatisfactory, appending certificates for the remedial work required, should be all that is required.
Now if you wish to disagree with that, or you consider it to be trolling, then please explain why.

However appending certification does not magically make the EICR Satisfactory. The EICR is still Unsatisfactory.

My business model is such, that if a client now requires me to alter the EICR from Unsatisfactory, to Satisfactory, I will refuse.
I would be willing to re-inspect the Installation and issue a new EICR, which may or may not be Satisfactory.

From personal experience, I have seen remedial work carried out which resulted in the upstairs and downstairs RFCs being terminated into each other’s MCBs.
Now some may consider incorrect labelling as a code C3.
However as the Consumer Unit is intended to be used by ordinary persons (i.e. non-competent, non-trained, non-skilled, etc.) I consider a code C2 to be applicable.
In any event whichever code applies, it will not have been recorded on the unsatisfactory EICR.

If you find it reprehensible that I am not prepared to state an installation will be Satisfactory for x amount of years, if the listed C1 and C2 observations are rectified by others, without first inspecting the work, you are nuts.

I also think, that you’re nuts for being willing to effectively guarantee other’s work for x amount of years, without first inspecting that work.

Of course, if you are not saying such, then explain just what it is you are saying.
Try to be clear and effective in your explanation.

 

[Nigel]

What I’m trying to do, is work out what it is you are saying.
Because you’re about as clear as mud.

Now I have already posted that where an EICR is Unsatisfactory, appending certificates for the remedial work required, should be all that is required.
Now if you wish to disagree with that, or you consider it to be trolling, then please explain why.

However appending certification does not magically make the EICR Satisfactory. The EICR is still Unsatisfactory.

My business model is such, that if a client now requires me to alter the EICR from Unsatisfactory, to Satisfactory, I will refuse.
I would be willing to re-inspect the Installation and issue a new EICR, which may or may not be Satisfactory.

From personal experience, I have seen remedial work carried out which resulted in the upstairs and downstairs RFCs being terminated into each other’s MCBs.
Now some may consider incorrect labelling as a code C3.
However as the Consumer Unit is intended to be used by ordinary persons (i.e. non-competent, non-trained, non-skilled, etc.) I consider a code C2 to be applicable.
In any event whichever code applies, it will not have been recorded on the unsatisfactory EICR.

If you find it reprehensible that I am not prepared to state an installation will be Satisfactory for x amount of years, if the listed C1 and C2 observations are rectified by others, without first inspecting the work, you are nuts.

I also think, that you’re nuts for being willing to effectively guarantee other’s work for x amount of years, without first inspecting that work.

Of course, if you are not saying such, then explain just what it is you are saying.
Try to be clear and effective in your explanation.

What I am saying is very clear.

You issue an undatisfactory EICR and recommend a date of next inspection. That date must assume all works that are required to be done, are done. This is written in black and white and is not open to interpretation.

When giving an unsatisfatory EICR for say the incorrect OCPD installed how long would you put for the next inspection due? Giving what you have said above it would appear that you would not put any date in as you would not sign it off unless you have seen the remedial works??

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What I am saying is very clear.

You issue an undatisfactory EICR and recommend a date of next inspection. That date must assume all works that are required to be done, are done. This is written in black amd white and is not open to interpretation.

When given an unsatisfatory EICR for say the incorrect OCPD installed how long would you put for the next inspection due? Goving what you have said above it would appear that you would not put any date in as you would not sign it off unless you have seen the remedial works??

No, I do not issue am Unsatisfactory report and then specify a date for the next inspection.
Just the same as if a vehicle fails an MOT, there is no date specified for the next MOT inspection.
If I were to specify when the next inspection should be, it would be when the observations have been rectified.

See here again unclear.
What do you mean by incorrect OCPD, what is the observation, what code has been applied?
You need to specify.
Is the rating incorrect, the type incorrect, does it affect the overall type testing of the CU, is the breaking capacity too low for the measured PFC, is there no discrimination with upstream or downstream devices?

I think I would really hate to see one of your reports.
Judging by how you explain yourself on the forum, I bet any of your reports would be just full of generalities.
Things like: “No RCD in Fuse Box, code C2”.

 

[Octopus]

If I provide an unsatisfactory EICR, I also send the invoice .....

The date for the reinspection is defined by me

Whether the person acts on my report isn’t my problem ......

 

[Risteard]

I have to agree with @essex - it is clearly stated within an EICR if you bother to read it that the date of next inspection is subject to dangerous and potentially dangerous defects being remedied, and further investigation being carried out where required. There is no need to reissue another EICR with the word "Satisfactory". Certified remedial works for the "Unsatisfactory" EICR make it now satisfactory. The original EICR is not amended to read "Satisfactory" - there is no need for it to. The certification proves that relevant issues have been corrected.

 

[Nigel]

No, I do not issue am Unsatisfactory report and then specify a date for the next inspection.
Just the same as if a vehicle fails an MOT, there is no date specified for the next MOT inspection.
If I were to specify when the next inspection should be, it would be when the observations have been rectified.

See here again unclear.
What do you mean by incorrect OCPD, what is the observation, what code has been applied?
You need to specify.
Is the rating incorrect, the type incorrect, does it affect the overall type testing of the CU, is the breaking capacity too low for the measured PFC, is there no discrimination with upstream or downstream devices?

I think I would really hate to see one of your reports.
Judging by how you explain yourself on the forum, I bet any of your reports would be just full of generalities.
Things like: “No RCD in Fuse Box, code C2”.

See now you are turning it personal. A standard response to someone that feels theeatened.

You have answered my question. You do not carry out EICRs to BS7671. At least you are honest about this.

 

[Nigel]

I have to agree with @essex - it is clearly stated within an EICR if you bother to read it that the date of next inspection is subject to dangerous and potentially dangerous defects being remedied, and further investigation being carried out where required. There is no need to reissue another EICR with the word "Satisfactory". Certified remedial works for the "Unsatisfactory" EICR make it now satisfactory. The original EICR is not amended to read "Satisfactory" - there is no need for it to. The certification proves that relevant issues have been corrected.

Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I have to agree with @essex - it is clearly stated within an EICR if you bother to read it that the date of next inspection is subject to dangerous and potentially dangerous defects being remedied, and further investigation being carried out where required. There is no need to reissue another EICR with the word "Satisfactory". Certified remedial works for the "Unsatisfactory" EICR make it now satisfactory. The original EICR is not amended to read "Satisfactory" - there is no need for it to. The certification proves that relevant issues have been corrected.

Read my first post in this thread (post #3).

 

[Nigel]

Read my first post in this thread (post #3).

It is a completly false statement.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

See now you are turning it personal. A standard response to someone that feels theeatened.

You have answered my question. You do not carry out EICRs to BS7671. At least you are honest about this.

Oh you accusing me of being a troll, is not personal?
You still haven’t explained anything.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It is a completly false statement.

Considering the second paragraph says what you have been saying, does that mean what you have been saying is also completely false?

 

[Nigel]

Oh you accusing me of being a troll, is not personal?
You still haven’t explained anything.

I never said you were a troll. I said you were trolling. Subtle difference.

 

[Nigel]

Considering the second paragraph says what you have been saying, does that mean what you have been saying is also completely false?

Oh my God, are you serious?

It says the complete opposite.

This is now hilarious.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The word ‘trolling’ is the present participle of the word ‘troll’.
By stating that I am trolling, you are stating that I am at present actively being a troll.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Oh my God, are you serious?

It says the complete opposite.

This is now hilarious.

How does “By rights appropriate certification appended to your report should be sufficient.” differ from what you have been saying?
You still haven’t explained.

 

[Nigel]

The word ‘trolling’ is the present participle of the word ‘troll’.
By stating that I am trolling, you are stating that I am at present actively being a troll.

Ok. Nice side step from the issue. Painting my living room does not make me a painter.

Do you accept that you are incorrect in your understanding of the EICR sign off procedure.

 

[Nigel]

How does “By rights appropriate certification appended to your report should be sufficient.” differ from what you have been saying?
You still haven’t explained.

Your Post 3 contradicts itself and shows a misunderstanding of how EICRs should be signed off. You have further clarifies your misunderstanding by confirming that you do not give a next inspection due date on unsatisfactory EICRs.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Ok. Nice side step from the issue. Painting my living room does not make me a painter.

Do you accept that you are incorrect in your understanding of the EICR sign off procedure.

Actually, it does.
It doesn’t make you a professional painter, but a painter is someone who paints.

No.
BS7671 allows me as the Inspector to determine when an installation should next be inspected.
If I do not consider an Installation is safe for continued use, then I am not obliged to state the installation should continue to be used and inspected in x amount of years.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Your Post 3 contradicts itself and shows a misunderstanding of how EICRs should be signed off. You have further clarifies your misunderstanding by confirming that you do not give a next inspection due date on unsatisfactory EICRs.

Please explain how it contradicts itself?

 

[Nigel]

Actually, it does.
It doesn’t make you a professional painter, but a painter is someone who paints.

No.
BS7671 allows me as the Inspector to determine when an installation should next be inspected.
If I do not consider an Installation is safe for continued use, then I am not obliged to state the installation should continue to be used and inspected in x amount of years.

This is what I mean by your misunderstanding of how the sign off procedure works. You have summed it up perfectly above.

It has been explained many times how it works and I have nothing more to add on it. Happy to help but you seem to be digging your heels in a little for some reason even though you are incorrect.

 

[Nigel]

Please explain how it contradicts itself?

You start by saying additional certification ‘should’ surfice then go on to say that if they want a satisfactory EICR then you will need to test again.

Come on. Jesus.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You start by saying additional certification ‘should’ surfice then go on to say that if they want a satisfactory EICR then you will need to test again.

Come on. Jesus.

If the client wants the report to state Satisfactory rather than Unsatisfactory, then the installation would have to be inspected again.

 

[Nigel]

If the client wants the report to state Satisfactory rather than Unsatisfactory, then the installation would have to be inspected again.

No the client would need to be educated.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No the client would need to be educated.

The problem with that, is that some Insurance companies will not accept Unsatisfactory reports even with appropriate certification for remedial work appended to the report.
Some insist the report must state Satisfactory.
Which is why I stated first:
“By rights appropriate certification appended to your report should be sufficient.”