Next date 'ASAP'

[Rockingit]

This has me as amused as perplexed.... took a look at a place the other day just as a cursory visit in advance to quoting for a proper inspection and the previous test sticker was 2012, with date of next inspection written as ASAP! So....... either the inspector didn't know what they were doing, it should have been condemned but wasn't or they just liked being there and wanted to go back!

Can't think that I've ever seen that before!

(NB, didn't strike me as being particularly bad)

 

[Deleted account]

I’ve seen one that had unsatisfactory on the next inspection date. Not good but a bit more informative than ASAP.

 

[Risteard]

In circumstances where I am doing work on an installation, but there are no existing labels or records as to when a previous inspection was carried out then I often write Date of Last Inspection as "Unknown" and Recommended Date of Next Inspection as "ASAP". It hardly seems unreasonable in these circumstances.

 

[bigspark17]

I will always write ‘unsatisfactory’ following a EICR with any c1 or c2’s. I cant justify writing a next test date on the label until the installation is satisfactory. Its more likely to get noticed and something done about it rather than writing 3 months or something daft like that!

 

[telectrix]

how about " when the pubs re-open"?

 

[Baddegg]

Could be a regional thing.......I spect there’s loads in Cornwall with....”drectley” written on em ? @daveocd will understand ?

 

[Risteard]

I will always write ‘unsatisfactory’ following a EICR with any c1 or c2’s. I cant justify writing a next test date on the label until the installation is satisfactory. Its more likely to get noticed and something done about it rather than writing 3 months or something daft like that!

The recommended date of next inspection is based on the assumption that all necessary remedial works are carried out so shouldn't give you an issue during periodic inspection and testing. It doesn't imply that the installation is satisfactory.

 

[bigspark17]

The recommended date of next inspection is based on the assumption that all necessary remedial works are carried out so shouldn't give you an issue during periodic inspection and testing. It doesn't imply that the installation is satisfactory.

have to disagree because the customer wouldnt care about that they would only see oh it doesnt need testing for another 5years. I see no problem putting unsatisfactory. Then relabelling it after remedial works.

 

[Risteard]

have to disagree because the customer wouldnt care about that they would only see oh it doesnt need testing for another 5years. I see no problem putting unsatisfactory. Then relabelling it after remedial works.

The problem is that the forms clearly state that it is based on the assumptions which I have outlined. It's not that I disagree with your reasoning, but JPEL/64 do not appear to agree. So I feel I've no choice but to base it upon the assumption that any necessary remedial works are carried out, and that therefore these do not influence the date. (Perhaps a low insulation resistance might if it's not being addressed - but merely to have more frequent periodic inspections, or if there was evidence of a lack of maintenance etc.)