How many EICRs in a day?

[HappyHippyDad]

Definitely just the one for me.. and that doesn't include getting all the paperwork completed!

 

[Engineer54]

Think you're all missing the point, ....the OP has been officially told the company allows 2 hours per EICR!! Which as we all KNOW is an impossibility, unless there are that many limitations being made, to render the EICR a totally pointless exercise in the first place...

So if this is an official company policy for this housing association contract, (2 hour EICR's) then something is very wrong!!

 

[Pete999]

Agree with 54 bloody firms like this one the OP describes are nothing but Rooster Cogburns (cowboys) someone in one of the scams, politicos or the ESC should be on them like a dose of the pox

 

[sparkside1]

If it were just the EICRs that would be one thing. The lack of company vehicle until end of contract, the day rate of pay, just taking on light commercial maintenance and PAT testing for speed of job completion. The recruiter lying to me about the large number of sparks hired in one hit. As I said, I am in no position to turn down work but even then, the "salesman" said he hires people to do these EICRs and they fail to deliver! So when I only manage 2, I'll be out the door......

 

[Pete999]

Mate, they are con merchants, taking the proverbial, extracting the urine, I appreciate it's work, but at the end of the day it's your name on the piece of paper, because that's all it represents, 4 EICRs per day get real

 

[Badged01]

I still question that regardless of the limitations etc ... areed with the client (who one assumes is not electrically competent) you as an electrical competent inspector are signing off a satisfactory report (again assuming its satisfactory!!) in the knowledge that everything has not been fully tested & inspected and its effectively worthless for electrical safety?. Does this constitute giving the client the 'professional' impression that the limitations are OK and the premises are safe (satisfactory for continued use)?. I would have thought as a minimum it questions the professional integrity of the inspector in doing it and issuing a worthless piece of paper?.

I don't know of a case where an 'accident' post one of these highly limited EICR's has been investigated and what the outcome was for the inspector. Was what the inspector did taken as totally acceptable or was there some culpibility on his shoulders for issuing such a report?

Anyone know of such a case?!?!

 

[SJD]

I still question that regardless of the limitations etc ... areed with the client (who one assumes is not electrically competent) you as an electrical competent inspector are signing off a satisfactory report (again assuming its satisfactory!!) in the knowledge that everything has not been fully tested & inspected and its effectively worthless for electrical safety?. Does this constitute giving the client the 'professional' impression that the limitations are OK and the premises are safe (satisfactory for continued use)?. I would have thought as a minimum it questions the professional integrity of the inspector in doing it and issuing a worthless piece of paper?.

As you say, the client is generally not electrically competent, and probably doesn't understand what is or is not appropriate re limitations.

I came across EICRs for a couple of care homes, where it had been stated that "up to 50%" of circuits would be tested, and guess what, the easy ones had been tested (e.g. immersion, cooker), and I was there because there were now issues with the untested ones. In this case, I think the original electricians had been a bit less than honest, because it was a surprise to the manager what had not been tested (and thus not found).

However, there are also those who are only having the electrics tested to get a piece of paper e.g. prior to letting, who don't really care what is actually done, all that matters is the price. I think in this case, the letting agents know but would claim to have done their job.

 

[Badged01]

I agree and a fear that like a lot of electrical matters, until something goes terribly wrong and is addressed in a court of law we won't know the answer to 'liability' for an incomplete or heavily limited EICR! Is it purely down to the customer or does the inspector have some blame?

 

[Badged01]

Not quite the same but similar to an MOT ...... you've passed and can get out on the road now but i havent done all these checks. However the radio, wipers and interior lights work!

 

[fredrico]

These companies go in cheap to get the work, then you have to work your balls off so as they get some money back. I have worked for some. You have not got a chance in hell to do 4, 2 at most. Don't forget that most of the houses will be full of **** do as you will struggle to get to a lot of things which will slow you down. Walk away.

 

[Pete999]

I agree and a fear that like a lot of electrical matters, until something goes terribly wrong and is addressed in a court of law we won't know the answer to 'liability' for an incomplete or heavily limited EICR! Is it purely down to the customer or does the inspector have some blame?

I would say Badged01 that the inspector must take all of the blame, he/she is the person carrying out the inspection, his/her names are on the certificate after they are signing to say that the results are true. I agree with you, until something dreadful happens, and these scams are highlighted we will never know, we've had part P because something happened, whats next Part EICR? The muppets in charge of things in Government, or whatever, must act NOW, not bury their heads in the sand, thinking about how much more they can claim on their third home, get someone who is of sound technical knowledge, that it's not all about "lets just get a man in" believe that's how these Dilberts see us tradesmen, someone in dirty clothes, I know I've worked with them, they have no inkling of whats required to do any job properly, most of them are toffee nosed and have not a clue. RANT OVER sorry about that

 

[Badged01]

No problem having a rant Pete it clears the system!

I know I won't do an EICR if its limited -- you cant test this, you cant test that because we need to keep doing this etc.... If I cant get in and do the full range of tests that I feel are necessary to convince me that the place is Satisfactory for continued use I will walk away. Im not bothered about the money, it's my name on the paperwork. I'm certainly not convinced that if something goes wrong with something I haven't checked, I wont be made to account for why I didn't check it or why I accept the clients protest that I couldn't check it!

I could be totally wrong of course and not having checked something and annotated this on the EICR may be sufficient for there to be no comeback on me. I'm risk adverse and wont be chancing it on EICR's I conduct!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

At 2 hours for perhaps 5 or 6 circuits, you can't hope to test all of them anywhere near properly, and will have to skip a lot of the tests.

For example, a socket RFC, you won't have time to cross connect L-E and measure R1+R2 at each outlet - probably Zs measurements and IR tests are all you can do. And you maybe won't even have time to start disconnecting cables at the CU to measure IR for individual circuits, it will be a global measurement.

So then either you have a lot of LIMs on the test sheet (I've seen this) or instead you start making the numbers up (I've seen this too).

But what if you just measure Zs at the sockets and the results suggest a broken ring? Or the global IR tests are low and you need to find out which circuit is causing this? And there is no time to test fully.

i guess its just as well that he wouldn`t have to then.

end to ends R2 and Zs for these mate.

 

[NDG Elecs]

I would put in operational limitations there were time constraints that prevented thorough testing and then mark each EICR as unsatisfactory until such a time the install can be checked properly and passed or otherwise! Reckon that will provide a nice headache for the idiots running the business. I wouldn't expect to have a job by Friday mind!

 

[NickD]

I agree and a fear that like a lot of electrical matters, until something goes terribly wrong and is addressed in a court of law we won't know the answer to 'liability' for an incomplete or heavily limited EICR! Is it purely down to the customer or does the inspector have some blame?

It's an interesting one. An EICR (non statutory in nature) is not much like an MoT (statutory in nature) because with an EICR you can agree limitations, with an MoT you can't. It's maybe more like if I'm selling a car, put it in garage for a safety check but say "Don't brush any muck off underneath to check for rust". If the car then injures the buyer because of structural failure due to rust, is the garage liable? Even if they knew the safety check was for a sale? Doubtful.

If it went to court, first question is, criminal or civil? Criminal options appear limited. There's H&S at Work Act, failing to discharge a duty (as per the Emma Shaw case), including of avoiding risks to the health and safety of non-employees. But if the check you haven't done was within the agreed limitations, is it beyond reasonable doubt that you still had a legal duty to do the check? Doubtful. Your defence would argue you could have found yourself otherwise liable if you had done tests that you'd agreed not to. As far as the law is concerned you are not necessarily there to make sure everything is safe, you are there to carry out T&I within agreed limitations, anything from just testing the RCDs to full-scope EICR. Morally if you have a problem with that then decline the work, assuming you can do that.

If it went civil (a money claim) then you'd probably be looking at negligence. I suspect you would get off if you could find one reasonable body of professional/expert opinion that would say it was OK practice on an EICR to only test what you agreed you'd test regardless of the importance of the excluded tests - or if you could show the danger that the omitted tests would have found wouldn't have gotten fixed anyway. Again your defence will argue that testing what you'd said you wouldn't is for starters a breach of contract and could leave you liable.

I'm not a full-fledged lawyer by any manner of means so don't take the above as professional legal advice.