Rewire after failed EICR. Have we been scammed?

[SparkyChick]

The inspector has followed the rules in the regulations.... Page 475 'Notes for the person producing the report'...

"9 Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent
deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and
further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the
code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E."

Whether those items should have had an FI classification or not is another discussion, but FI on anything in an EICR must result in an unsatisfactory result.

Overall that report is a complete waste of time and I (as a NAPIT member) would encourage you to contact NAPIT and discuss this with them.... at the very least the company carrying out the report will be looked at in a bit more detail during their next assessment. As has already been stated, it lacks any meaningful test results, certainly nothing that we can use to judge whether the 'requires a rewire' statement is correct or not.

That being said, anyone quoting for the remedial work should have raised the red flag at seeing the report. If they didn't ask to see it, then they are as guilty as the guy who carried out the EICR for unethical practices as they've just done what was asked rather than looking to see if that was actually the best thing for the client.

 

[pc1966]

The inspector has followed the rules in the regulations.... Page 475 'Notes for the person producing the report'...

"9 Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent
deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and
further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the
code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E."

Whether those items should have had an FI classification or not is another discussion, but FI on anything in an EICR must result in an unsatisfactory result.

That is a good point, thanks for the reminder about 'FI'.

It did have those, even if how justified they were is debatable.

Overall that report is a complete waste of time and I (as a NAPIT member) would encourage you to contact NAPIT and discuss this with them.... at the very least the company carrying out the report will be looked at in a bit more detail during their next assessment. As has already been stated, it lacks any meaningful test results, certainly nothing that we can use to judge whether the 'requires a rewire' statement is correct or not.

Agreed.

That being said, anyone quoting for the remedial work should have raised the red flag at seeing the report. If they didn't ask to see it, then they are as guilty as the guy who carried out the EICR for unethical practices as they've just done what was asked rather than looking to see if that was actually the best thing for the client.

That is possibly harsh!

If you turned up at a property after being told it needed a rewire and found, say, an old Wylex board with plug-in breakers or obsolete CU without RCD, and accessories in a poor state after 30+ years you would probably not doubt it was needed. Yes, once you start you might find cable was actually OK, etc, but at that point a bit committed!

So it might have been a scam and nothing needed doing to the actual cables, or it might have been generally poor so nobody would have seen fault with a phone call saying EICR failed, etc.

 

[SparkyChick]

That is possibly harsh!

If you turned up at a property after being told it needed a rewire and found, say, an old Wylex board with plug-in breakers or obsolete CU without RCD, and accessories in a poor state after 30+ years you would probably not doubt it was needed. Yes, once you start you might find cable was actually OK, etc, but at that point a bit committed!

So it might have been a scam and nothing needed doing, or it might have been generally poor so nobody would have seen fault with a phone call saying EICR failed, etc.

Maybe it is a bit harsh, but my first question whenever I'm asked to quote for a rewire is 'why do you want it doing?'. If they say 'because I've been told by such and such' (or similar or there's a report involved), I ask to see the paperwork and take it from there. Regardless of what the report said (or didn't) I'd probably break out the tester and do a bit of quick investigation (you can get a reasonable idea of the state of the wiring in a relatively short amount of time), take a look in the loft say, check the board out, take a quick look at things like earthing in the lighting circuits, check the ring circuits out maybe. Basically satisfy myself that a rewire is in fact needed. In some cases it's plainly obvious, like the whole place being wired in rubber, but some people seem to suggest it at the drop of a hat... just like they suggest a board change because there's no RCD protection on the upstairs lights and the bathroom is being done out with downlights.

Our first obligation is to our clients, we should be seeking to do what's best for them all the time... yes, we're in business to make money but if that involves doing things that are completely unnecessary just because the client asks us to then we're just not being decent human beings. If you explain the pro's and con's, pricing, potential issues etc. and they still want you to do it then you've done your part to try and make sure they aren't being ripped off.

Unfortunately in this case it's impossible for any of us to say because there's nothing to refer back to regarding the original installation. The report is a waste of time and gives no real indication as to why they deemed it to need a rewire.

One of the topics I discussed with my NAPIT area engineer during my assessment this year was this very subject and he's desperately trying to get funding so he can actively spend more time investigating companies that have complaints made against them... and here we're talking random site vists. I hate hearing about companies that are members of NAPIT doing stuff like this because as with so many other things, we all end up being tarred with the same brush. The other thing that needs to change is for the schemes to allow people other than clients to report members. I keep coming across work carried out by a particular spark and it's bad, everytime... the NICEIC don't give a ---- because I'm not the client.

We all make mistakes, we all have off days and I'm not claiming to be perfect... far from it... but I'd rather talk myself out of a big job and have a clear conscience than knowingly undertake work that simply wasn't required just because the client asked me to.

 

[UNG]

While the EICR does lack a lot the fact that the premises have now been rewired and there is nothing to compare it too makes it difficult to actually form any opinion of how good, bad or indifferent the installation was at the time. A schedule of tests with only 4 circuits listed would suggest separate CU's for the shop and flat if that is the case why only one schedule

While you are looking to possible legal redress I think that may be difficult without the inspectable evidence or a second EICR to support it
The actual timeline isn't clear as to whether the premises were occupied with the new tenant or not when the letting agent pressurised your parents with the 30 days to complete the remedial works

This is definitely a case of hindsight being a wonderful thing and lessons being learned

 

[cliffed]

That report is a disgrace, there are no circuit readings anywhere.
It looks like there’s no MBPC which would be a C2, even though a 10mm cable been indicated.
2.5mm MEC, which also would be a C2, seems to be a manufactured EICR..
Hope you get your compensation, I would be livid…good luck

 

[ferg]

As a possibility, The report looks like someone just gave up half way through.
This happens sometimes where so many faults are found a stop is put to the EICR and a recommendation for a rewire is made.
However this is not indicated on the report, was it made in writing or verbally?
As mentioned above it doesn't look like the flat is on the report either.