EICR Test Results mostly left blank

[Dave Jenkins]

Mornin'
I did a small job for a client earlier in the week and told her I need to complete a Minor Works cert - as you do..
She said that she didn't need one because she had this - waving an EICR under my nose.
Looking through the document, it all looked good until the last page - test results. All of the Continuity and IR boxes were marked N/R. All the other boxes for all the circuits were OK.
So I did my MWC and departed.
Thinking about it, not carrying out all the circuits tests for an EICR isn't something I'd do but is it necessarily incorrect? Guidance Note 3 suggests it's up to the tester to decide what tests are appropriate - thorough testing of circuits versus introducing wiring faults during the tests....
Do you all fill all of the boxes for every EICR.
PS..takes me all day to do an EICR but I note there's some 'electricians' claim to do multiple EICRs per day...
What do you think?

 

[Octopus]

I did one this week - the IR on one bank of circuits came back as almost zero N - earth.

I then did individual tests om each of the 4 circuits to ifentify the one with the issue. Still a C2 but at least there is only 1 to investigate is they want it fixed!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I did one this week - the IR on one bank of circuits came back as almost zero N - earth.

I then did individual tests om each of the 4 circuits to ifentify the one with the issue. Still a C2 but at least there is only 1 to investigate is they want it fixed!

Cooker circuit?

 

[Octopus]

Cooker circuit?

Socket circuit

 

[Ian1981]

I would say that you should be verifying a particular circuit has an earth rather than getting a test meter and potentially whacking 25 amps worth of test current down the circuit.
Exposed parts /pipework that aren’t earthed can become a shock risk.

However I do realise that most test instruments won’t allow the test if the touch voltage detected is greater than 50 v

 

[cliffed]

Agree,verification of new build,is so much easier & essential than any Eicr.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I would say that you should be verifying a particular circuit has an earth rather than getting a test meter and potentially whacking 25 amps worth of test current down the circuit.
Exposed parts /pipework that aren’t earthed can become a shock risk.

However I do realise that most test instruments won’t allow the test if the touch voltage detected is greater than 50 v

If there is no earth there will have been a shock risk long before you turn up to test.

 

[Ian1981]

If there is no earth there will have been a shock risk long before you turn up to test.

Maybe , just highlighting the fact that if you’re test instrument doesn’t have the touch voltage safety feature then you will potentially make a bad situation worse.

Not really sure if them type of test instruments exist/ are used?

 

[Sparky_marky2]

Keep a record of the person who did the EICR. Tell the customer. - Not that you can do anything with it mind you.
Perhaps making it public on these forums that they are being noted might make some pull their socks up. I have about four in this category. More or less blank ( or completely wrong) EICR. Satisfies many landlords though.
A domestic EICR on an old house is an exhausting full-on day. I'd often be still writing it up at 11pm or next day.

I do work for some housing agencies that expect you to churn out as many EICRs in a day as possible.. telling them that the guys they have must be skipping over details or not testing things at all they just say "well its passed all the relevant tests" I just laughed... it takes me a good day to do a thorough test

 

[Grezza]

Zs won’t show show broken rings , or whether a neutral is lose in a socket/jb etc.

If I get paid for a full test I do the lot, except pull downlight down or take fancy light fittings down ( unless I suspect a fault there )

Customer get an all clear with a full set of new results to replace the missing ones.

 

[sparksfly]

I have seen many EICR/PIR's that are worthless carried out by letterbox "bent towards Observation" electricians with a "Lim" overuse condition especially in L/N-E IR testing, it does not help anyone down the road especially fault installation history. I accept L-N is not always clear due to something somewhere attached but I still try to whittle that down and note the result.
If only people or organisations were educated to realise the importance of electrical testing and how involved it is. Then we may get the recognition and time it deserves.
I now challenge/question any silly recent reports I come across....it just gives this trade a bad name.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Zs won’t show show broken rings , or whether a neutral is lose in a socket/jb etc. Neither will an R1+R2 which was the only test I suggested may be superfluous.

If I get paid for a full test I do the lot, except pull downlight down or take fancy light fittings down ( unless I suspect a fault there )

Customer get an all clear with a full set of new results to replace the missing ones.

I have seen many EICR/PIR's that are worthless carried out by letterbox "bent towards Observation" electricians with a "Lim" overuse condition especially in L/N-E IR testing, it does not help anyone down the road especially fault installation history. I accept L-N is not always clear due to something somewhere attached but I still try to whittle that down and note the result. So faced with a large number of 12v downlights I presume you drop them all with the associated damage to the ceiling and disconnect the transformers so you can do a L-N IR test?
A global LN-E test on a domestic CU which gives a satisfactory reading will confirm that each and every final circuit is satisfactory. If the global is not satisfactory THEN start breaking it down.
If only people or organisations were educated to realise the importance of electrical testing and how involved it is. Then we may get the recognition and time it deserves.
I now challenge/question any silly recent reports I come across....it just gives this trade a bad name.

 

[Grezza]

No, but dead testing procedure will.

 

[Toneyz]

I still maintain that an R1+R2 dead test proves more than a loop test.Zs+(R1+R2).

 

[Ian1981]

I still maintain that an R1+R2 dead test proves more than a loop test.Zs+(R1+R2).

Do you mean zs=ze+(R1+R2)

 

[Toneyz]

Do you mean zs=ze+(R1+R2)

Yes, thank for correcting me.I think most people on here probably knew what I was getting at indirectly