EICRs: observations and test results that dismay me

[happysteve]

Eh up

I don't do EICRs - not enough experience - but the things I see on some reports done by others really dismay me. Perhaps some of my understanding needs improving, I dunno. Or perhaps the CPSes have their own set of guidelines different from the sources I use? In the examples below, I'm taking my knowledge from:

- BS7671
- GN3
- Electrical Safety First, specificallly Best Practice Guide 4 and their FAQs of periodic inspection, testing, certification and reporting.

Gripe number 1: made up numbers, using maths

I'm not talking about the "van test" here, whereby you look at the previous EICR and enter similar numbers, without even getting your tester out. I'm talking about:

- measure Ze
- measure Zs at a random point (lowest ceiling? As per the legend widdler's rant in this thread)
- in the R1+R2 box, put the number that is mathematically Zs-Ze
- if a RFC, determine r1 and rn using 4 x (R1+R2) x (1.5/4), and r2 using 4 x (R1+R2) x (2.5/4) (which would meet the theoretical criteria "r1+r2 = (R1+R2)/4" for a RFC wired in 2.5mm T&E with 1.5mm cpc).

So you end up with a schedule of test results that looks like you've done loads of tests, but in fact done one (per circuit).

I would argue that for an existing installation that is energised, that you have confirmed has a means of earthing, and bonding is in place, you would not need to measure R1+R2. To back this up, I quote "note 4" under table 3.4 of GN3 (p84) - "The earth fault loop impedance test may be used to confirm the continuity of protective conductors at socket-outlets and at accessible exposed-conductive-parts of current-using equipment and accessories." And also the answer to FAQ Q2.12 here.

GN3 also gives guidance to whether ring circuit continuity is necessary (table 3.4, p 83): "Where there are records of previous tests, this test may not be necessary unless there may have been changes made to the RFC."

So in many cases, I would argue they don't need to put these numbers! But perhaps there's a culture of, "there's a box for it, it needs a value." But a value in the box implies that you've measured it (e.g. that you've tested continuity of ring circuits) when you haven't. How would the person reading the report know?!?

It's even more obvious when there's more than one DB, and they've used Ze rather than Zs (@DB) to calculate R1+R2! That's just sloppy!

And to cap it off, an operational limitation: "No continuity tests on circuits that cannot be isolated without affecting your trading." Huh.

Gripe number 2: Fake IR results.

So, you've successfully identified which circuits are three phase, and which are single phase - well done you! You've put ">500" in the former, and "N/A" in the latter for "Line/Line (MΩ)." All other boxes: L/N, L/E and N/E, you've put ">500." Uh huh. Despite the operational limitation, "No IR tests applied to circuits containing equipment subject to damage." Nah, sorry, don't buy it. But the customer thinks, "Ooh, that all sounds ok."

Again: if you've not tested it - and GN3 gives guidance here too - why put numbers in the boxes?!?

Gripe number 3: C2 for things that don't need it

- Lack of diagrams, charts or schedules at or near equipment (all circuits marked up on boards)... table 3.5, GN3, p88 (example of C3 code)
- Lack of "415V" warning notice... 514.10.1 ?!?
- White flex used for exterior equipment exposed to sunlight (where no visible sign of deterioration is present... and after all, its IR is >500MΩ!)

It just dismays me. Am I right to be dismayed?

 

[TJ Anderson]

Firstly Steve, seeing your understanding, I think maybe you should be doing EICR'S as you have better grasp of testing than many who are doing it. Secondly, what you describe is unfortunately very common practice in commercial EICR'S, but I think you have its measure, so don't be dismayed . The more you see the less it will surprise you, and you are going to see a lot!!

 

[Leesparkykent]

Unfortunately Steve the business of doing EICR's is so cut throat they hardly ever get inspected and tested properly. I have a friend who does all the EICR's for a major sports retailer covering the whole of the south and does them for £6:10 a circuit. I don't see how any 1 could conduct all the tests and carry out a thorough inspection of each circuit for that sort of money. To make it half worthwhile on an 8 hour day he would have to do 6 circuits an hour constantly and write the results/observations/link them to reg numbers etc . I've been on jobs before where its taken me half a day to find a circuit lol. Most customers are only interested in a satisfactory report and are only willing to pay next to nothing for it.

I very rarely do them due to the above reasons as my price will almost certainly be more expensive than others. When I do them though they are done properly.....and I find them boring as lol.

Edit: I also agree with TJ about your level of understanding is probably better than some of the seasoned sparks :vanish:

 

[Richard Burns]

This is common for a lot of EICRs and even EICs, the results are made up.
I have occasionally (rarely) had previous paperwork to refer to when doing an EICR, oh good I think this will make it easy and then my measured results are nowhere near the previously recorded values.
Of course I am sure the DNO had just changed the supply characteristics and the house had been rewired since the last test, but something tells me I might be wrong!

This unfortunately makes a mockery of a lot of the paperwork that is produced and does not reflect well on the industry.
Unfortunately there is no viable recourse to address this as there are no interested parties (except us).
The customer wants a satisfactory EICR with lots of numbers on it. The "electrician" wants to get paid as much as possible for minimum work.

Try not to follow in their footsteps, it is not worth doing the job if you do it wrong.

 

[happysteve]

It seems to be either (a) do it to price to get the job, give satisfactory to ensure getting future work, or (b) make up problems that aren't there, in order to get the work to "put it right."

As an example, >£100 to solve the "no schedules of circuits at the distributions boards" Code 2 ("Potentially dangerous - urgent remedial action required"!) My friend was very pleased when I told them they could just print out the relevant pages from the EICR and stick them in a plastic folder near the boards!

 

[Richard Burns]

It seems like they are not obeying 1 or 2 in your signature and I would certainly not be following three if I were doing it.

 

[ipf]

Unfortunately Steve the business of doing EICR's is so cut throat they hardly ever get inspected and tested properly. I have a friend who does all the EICR's for a major sports retailer covering the whole of the south and does them for £6:10 a circuit. I don't see how any 1 could conduct all the tests and carry out a thorough inspection of each circuit for that sort of money. To make it half worthwhile on an 8 hour day he would have to do 6 circuits an hour constantly and write the results/observations/link them to reg numbers etc . I've been on jobs before where its taken me half a day to find a circuit lol. Most customers are only interested in a satisfactory report and are only willing to pay next to nothing for it.

I very rarely do them due to the above reasons as my price will almost certainly be more expensive than others. When I do them though they are done properly.....and I find them boring as lol.

Edit: I also agree with TJ about your level of understanding is probably better than some of the seasoned sparks :vanish:

I'll agree with your edit Lee, as well as the rest of your comments.
As regards that joke pricing, I got that factory job mentioned previously. Never been tested and some is up to 50 years old. At £6.10 per circuit, I reckon about 60% of that will be taken up just gaining circuit details, etc and transferring to certificate in preparation work. It's laughable, couldn't even do a ''visual'' for that.

 

[Risteard]

And to cap it off, an operational limitation: "No continuity tests on circuits that cannot be isolated without affecting your trading." Huh.

I agree with much of what you have said, but don't see specifically what the problem is with the above. (Although an agreed limitation would be more appropriate than an operational limitation.)

But it's not unreasonable to have an agreed limitation that you are going to limit the time that the installation is de-energised in, for example, a shop where they can't afford to lose the business. Obviously ideally out-of-hours work would be better but the client isn't always willing to allow that or to pay for it.

 

[Risteard]

Most customers are only interested in a satisfactory report and are only willing to pay next to nothing for it.

LOL. I had one recently where the client was raging that I had recommended the next inspection in one year telling me they had been told 5 years for shops. I explained that it was at the discretion of the inspector based on the condition of the installation. It was impossible to get that point across. She also didn't understand that whether the next inspection was 1 year or 5 years the report still had "UNSATISFACTORY" written on it on pages 1 and 2 and should not be left without having remedial work done.

EICRs can be more of a hassle than they are worth.

 

[happysteve]

I agree with much of what you have said, but don't see specifically what the problem is with the above. (Although an agreed limitation would be more appropriate than an operational limitation.)

But it's not unreasonable to have an agreed limitation that you are going to limit the time that the installation is de-energised in, for example, a shop where they can't afford to lose the business. Obviously ideally out-of-hours work would be better but the client isn't always willing to allow that or to pay for it.

I agree with you entirely! Apologies for not making myself clear: I was citing this as proof that the R1+R2 numbers were made up (despite this limitation which, as you say, may be reasonable in consultation with the client).

 

[gutterball]

I tested a HMO the other day and was given the 2 previous reports. Both done by the same person.
TNCS um no it's TNC
60898 breakers um no 3871 it says it right on the front of the breaker
Every box ticked on the inspection schedule
Then there was the test results. Am i in a different house?
The landlord was not happy with the big list of 2's and3's. Apparently it normally passes ok.

 

[happysteve]

I tested a HMO the other day and was given the 2 previous reports. Both done by the same person.
TNCS um no it's TNC

TNC?!? Um... gosh! That's a little... unusual? Didn't think that was permitted on a public supply...

 

[gutterball]

you know i meant tns :blush5:

 

[happysteve]

Just keeping you on your toes...!

 

[ipf]

LOL. I had one recently where the client was raging that I had recommended the next inspection in one year telling me they had been told 5 years for shops. I explained that it was at the discretion of the inspector based on the condition of the installation. It was impossible to get that point across. She also didn't understand that whether the next inspection was 1 year or 5 years the report still had "UNSATISFACTORY" written on it on pages 1 and 2 and should not be left without having remedial work done.

EICRs can be more of a hassle than they are worth.

She didn't realize it's not much good for insurance purposes if it's for one year or five. :frown2: