Inspection&Test and EICR

[KashBag]

Hi guys,
As a qualified electrician, do you need to be registered with a Scheme in order to carry out Inspection&Test and EICR? It is not notifiable anyway! According to the Regs being competent is sufficient, but you never know, every day we hear a new thing . I have completed the Verification, Inspection and testing course to be on the safe side!

 

[loz2754]

Hi guys,
Do you need to be registered with a Scheme in order to carry out Inspection&Test and EICR? It is not notifiable anyway! According to the Regs being competent is sufficient, but you never know how, every day we hear a new thing . I have completed the Verification, Inspection and testing course to be on the safe side!

No you don't have to be registered with a competent persons scheme to do EICRs, at least in theory. But in reality most landlords and letting agencies (for private rented accommodation) will not hire you unless you are registered.

 

[KashBag]

No you don't have to be registered with a competent persons scheme to do EICRs, at least in theory. But in reality most landlords and letting agencies (for private rented accommodation) will not hire you unless you are registered.

all about money and private corp business )), but understandable as well.

 

[nicebutdim]

all about money and private corp business )), but understandable as well.

Probably more about setting a bar, but lay people have little understanding of what it means to be registered with a scheme. I guess schemes provide an air of legitimacy to them.

 

[loz2754]

If you check the guidance for landlords on the Private Rented Sector 2020 regulations, there is a section that states that scheme membership is not required. So you could use that if the client is insistent.

Another thing that should be considered essential is Professional Indemnity insurance, for anyone issuing EICRs. But it has to specify in the insurance schedule that the cover is specifically for inspection and testing of electrical installations.

 

[KashBag]

If you check the guidance for landlords on the Private Rented Sector 2020 regulations, there is a section that states that scheme membership is not required. So you could use that if the client is insistent.

Another thing that should be considered essential is Professional Indemnity insurance, for anyone issuing EICRs. But it has to specify in the insurance schedule that the cover is specifically for inspection and testing of electrical installations.

Yes, good point with the indemnity stuff. I have one and it covers test and inspection etc.

 

[mainline]

Yes, good point with the indemnity stuff. I have one and it covers test and inspection etc.

One of the other considerations is that if someone is registered as a domestic installer with NICEIC then they can't use their certificates unless they are registered as a contractor.

 

[mainline]

I guess schemes provide an air of legitimacy to them.

And don't forget the air of competency

 

[KashBag]

One of the other considerations is that if someone is registered as a domestic installer with NICEIC then they can't use their certificates unless they are registered as a contractor.

Thanks. I have designed my own template and as far as I know it is fully legal, right? As long as I have indemnity all OK.

 

[mainline]

Thanks. I have designed my own template and as far as I know it is fully legal, right? As long as I have indemnity all OK.

There are lots of places to download the forms for free.

 

[KashBag]

There are lots of places to download the forms for free.

Cheers, do you think I can find them in exel as well? That way I could add my own logo and other legal details. cheers

 

[Teddy Lop]

No you don't have to be registered with a competent persons scheme to do EICRs, at least in theory. But in reality most landlords and letting agencies (for private rented accommodation) will not hire you unless you are registered.

I dunno about most, there's a shocking amount of ignorance out there.

Anyone can buy a pad of certs and go testing, and going on some of what I see that's exactly what some people do! (And that's not to say I don't see scheme certs too that should have been printed on softer paper, at least they'd be good for something!)

I'm currently on an EICR for a large bakery, the manager informed me with some suprise at my requirement to switch things off, the last one was done "remotely".

Out of interest OP why as a qualified spark would you want to operate without scheme membership? For all the downsides with the schemes themselves at least it looks like you're trying...

 

[nicebutdim]

Out of interest OP why as a qualified spark would you want to operate without scheme membership? For all the downsides with the schemes themselves at least it looks like you're trying...

There are numerous reasons why someone may choose to not join a scheme.

 

[westward10]

I dunno about most, there's a shocking amount of ignorance out there.

That made me chuckle.

 

[UNG]

I dunno about most, there's a shocking amount of ignorance out there.

And it is not just the landlords and letting agents looking at the quality of some of the EICR's

Anyone can buy a pad of certs and go testing fill them in, and going on some of what I see that's exactly what some people do! (And that's not to say I don't see scheme certs too that should have been printed on softer paper, at least they'd be good for something!)

Corrected that for you

I'm currently on an EICR for a large bakery, the manager informed me with some suprise at my requirement to switch things off, the last one was done "remotely".

That will be a cloud based cert

Out of interest OP why as a qualified spark would you want to operate without scheme membership? For all the downsides with the schemes themselves at least it looks like you're trying...

Looking at most of the NICEIC and for that matter the NAPIT certs I have seen over the last few years the schemes don't add much if any credibility to the quality and accuracy of the reports their registered competent persons and approved contractors are producing
The schemes over the last 10 - 20 years have got themselves stuck in the money pit and are struggling to climb out of it to re-establish a standard that they had in the past before the race to the bottom that was driven by Emma Clancy when she was at the helm of certsure

 

[KashBag]

And it is not just the landlords and letting agents looking at the quality of some of the EICR's

Corrected that for you

That will be a cloud based cert

Looking at most of the NICEIC and for that matter the NAPIT certs I have seen over the last few years the schemes don't add much if any credibility to the quality and accuracy of the reports their registered competent persons and approved contractors are producing
The schemes over the last 10 - 20 years have got themselves stuck in the money pit and are struggling to climb out of it to re-establish a standard that they had in the past before the race to the bottom that was driven by Emma Clancy when she was at the helm of certsure

I like your view!! These compaies are not adding any value to the profession. To me a qualified person who has worked hard and passed his exams successfully does not need need a watch dog who charges 1000s a year just to allow them do their job. Thi country has ha it. Sorry. I agree there must be CPD requirement et. but not by private money making corps

 

[suffolkspark]

I've seen good and bad reports by cps and non cps sparks. You need to be confident you are competent to carry them out, imo that would still mean you carry 2391 or equivalent.

Being non cps does mean you won't always be able to actually correct the non compliances you identify yourself though, domestically of course, if board changes etc are required or other things lead to notifiable works then you have the potentially embarrassing conversation of, "this is wrong but im not allowed to fix it". Thus providing only half of the full service really, you'd need to inform your clients of this fact prior to getting the job imo.

 

[nicebutdim]

I've seen good and bad reports by cps and non cps sparks. You need to be confident you are competent to carry them out, imo that would still mean you carry 2391 or equivalent.

Being non cps does mean you won't always be able to actually correct the non compliances you identify yourself though, domestically of course, if board changes etc are required or other things lead to notifiable works then you have the potentially embarrassing conversation of, "this is wrong but im not allowed to fix it". Thus providing only half of the full service really, you'd need to inform your clients of this fact prior to getting the job imo.

The service under discussion is the compilation and provision of a report, after inspection and testing of an installation. Nothing more and nothing less should be considered 'the full service'.

Anything other than the above should be agreed by both parties prior to work commencing.

 

[suffolkspark]

The service under discussion is the compilation and provision of a report, after inspection and testing of an installation. Nothing more and nothing less should be considered 'the full service'.

Anything other than the above should be agreed by both parties prior to work commencing.

I take my van for an mot fully expecting the garage to be able to fix any identified problems, i wouldn't consider a company that could identify problems and do nothing about them.

This should be considered if thats his buisness model, testing only, that potentially the attractiveness of his service is then less so to prospective customers. They could look for others that can find and fix.

 

[mainline]

I take my van for an mot fully expecting the garage to be able to fix any identified problems, i wouldn't consider a company that could identify problems and do nothing about them.

This should be considered if thats his buisness model, testing only, that potentially the attractiveness of his service is then less so to prospective customers. They could look for others that can find and fix.

Depending on the client and explaining the situation.

I think most sparks would do the work and get a matey to sign it off or just give the report.

 

[nicebutdim]

I take my van for an mot fully expecting the garage to be able to fix any identified problems, i wouldn't consider a company that could identify problems and do nothing about them.

This should be considered if thats his buisness model, testing only, that potentially the attractiveness of his service is then less so to prospective customers. They could look for others that can find and fix.

In NI we take our vehicles to a government test centre and it passes or fails - if work is required then we have that carried out at a garage and make an appointment to have it re-tested.

There is no conflict of interest and no possibility that a test centre will be touting for business.

Regardless of whatever merits your analogy may or may not possess, when an electrician is contracted to carry out an EICR they are being asked to inspect, test and report. Anything beyond that falls outside of the scope of an EICR. Whether or not an electrician wishes to agree additional works up front or quote for remedial works is a separate matter.

 

[Teddy Lop]

Looking at most of the NICEIC and for that matter the NAPIT certs I have seen over the last few years the schemes don't add much if any credibility to the quality and accuracy of the reports their registered competent persons and approved contractors are producing
The schemes over the last 10 - 20 years have got themselves stuck in the money pit and are struggling to climb out of it to re-establish a standard that they had in the past before the race to the bottom that was driven by Emma Clancy when she was at the helm of certsure

I wouldn't care to defend the schemes and yes a lot of dross finds it's way past their checks and onto their paperwork, but like it or not they are the industries compliance mechanism so working around them just seems a faff and self restricting and would make people question you.

I don't wholly buy the "oh you can still do industrial innit", if a few more managers etc understood their obligations in law, and what they could potentially be deemed culpable of when they employed dodgy Joe down the road to carry out electrical work they'd also be far keener to use someone who can be fingered should the fit hit the shan.

 

[UNG]

I take my van for an mot fully expecting the garage to be able to fix any identified problems, i wouldn't consider a company that could identify problems and do nothing about them.

I certainly have a different view my father was a mechanic and my 2 brothers are recently retired mechanics and they would never go to a garage for an MOT that does repairs as they are quite often looking for work rather than carrying out an honest MOT. The MOT test garage all the family and quite a number of friends currently use and have done for the last 15 or more years does a fair and genuine MOT the fact they don't do repairs does in no way affect what they do it keeps 2 MOT testers busy all day everyday 5 days a week and every other Saturday morning
The big problem these days most vehicles now require expensive specialist tooling and diagnostics so some MOT centres may not be equiped due to the costs involved to repair all vehicles

This should be considered if thats his buisness model, testing only, that potentially the attractiveness of his service is then less so to prospective customers. They could look for others that can find and fix.

I don't see any reason why someone who is semi retired couldn't just do test & inspection with maybe some very minor remedial work without all the hassle of doing the more major remedial work

 

[brianmoooore]

The semi retired referred to above is much more likely to have the experience to accurately assess the age of an existing installation to determine which things that would now be C2 can be marked as C3.

 

[UNG]

I wouldn't care to defend the schemes and yes a lot of dross finds it's way past their checks and onto their paperwork,

Your statement seems at odds with your posts that appear to be pro scheme

but like it or not they are the industries compliance mechanism

That is where you are being misled try making a complaint then you will find out that they are far from it

so working around them just seems a faff and self restricting and would make people question you.

The schemes have been misleading people for years aided and abetted by the media

I don't wholly buy the "oh you can still do industrial innit", if a few more managers etc understood their obligations in law, and what they could potentially be deemed culpable of when they employed dodgy Joe down the road to carry out electrical work they'd also be far keener to use someone who can be fingered should the fit hit the shan.

A lot of it comes down to how a Dutyholder discharges their Duty of care, but the question then is how to carry out due diligence on a contractor before placing the order do you accept the NICEIC / NAPIT model where it is assumed that they have done it on your behalf and what will be delivered is an honest and genuine report which truly reflects the condition of the installation the issue then is can the dutyholder easily validate what is in the report to ensure they have met their duty of care

The part I have never understood is how NICEIC and NAPIT validate a contractors ability and skillset to carry out EICR's when they don't appear to have any assessment procedure for doing so