My observations:
1. The form used is the 2008 version. The tester should have used the current 2018 version.
2. The installation is said to have been "100% tested". If so, then why has the schedule of tests been left blank?
3. The summary of the condition of the installation has been left blank. Why?
4. Mandatory inspection and testing of private rented accommodation in Scotland takes place every five years, not three as is stated on the report.
5. The nominal voltage of the installation is stated to be 239 volts. I would normally attribute an error like this to a typo, but given the other glaring errors that I've noticed on this report I'm not sure that this actually is a typo.
6. The maximum demand check-box has been marked N/A. Sloppy.
7. Main protective bonding to gas and water services is stated to be present. If so, then why has the property owner been quoted for "materials to install main gas bond"? Furthermore, why has the tester quoted for a 16mm conductor when 10mm would suffice?
8. Section 3.1, all parts relating to main protective bonding have been marked as satisfactory. But how can this possibly be so when the property owner has been told that part of the remedial works concerns the installation of bonding to the gas service? Which of these two contradictory statements is true and which is false?
9. Although the earthing system has been marked as being TN-C-S in section 5.12, RCD(s) provided for fault protection has nevertheless been checked. Some mistake surely!
10. Section 5.16, presence of RCD restest notice, has been marked as N/A. Another glaring error.
11. Giving C3 codes for the items listed in sections 5.20 and 5.21 is bordering on the ridiculous. It would be quicker just to affix the missing labels. Ditto section 6.1. Giving a code for unsleeved switched lives is unwarranted IMHO.
12. Section 6.9, presence and adequacy of circuit protective conductors has been marked as satisfactory. However, under the Schedule of Items Tested, it is stated that continuity of protective conductors requires further investigation. Why the contradiction?
13. The Test Results and Circuit Details section contain no data other than multiple entries in the Zs column of 0.17. Since the report was supposedly checked before being signed-off by the tester's boss, there really are no excuses for the extremely poor quality of this EICR. None whatsoever.
Then there are the codes. In my opinion, items 1, 2 and 3 do not merit codes. I'm puzzled as to why a faulty socket merits a C2 while a faulty FCU merits a C3.
The description given for item 7 would make more sense if the tester had stated which circuit he believed to be overloaded.
Item 8 isn't something I would code unless something drastic had occurred such as
wetpants installing a boiler directly in front of the consumer unit.
Had the tester bothered to list the actual readings obtained from his IR tests we might then know the identity of which "2 x separate circuits" he's referring to regarding item 9.
As for item 10, all I can say here is WTF? If the kitchen sockets aren't on a ring then they must be on a radial and vice-versa. I would expect to hear such a ridiculous statement from a plumber or a kitchen-fitter, but never from someone claiming to be an electrician.
I'm utterly embarrassed to reveal that the company responsible for this report are SELECT members. My advice to the property owner will be that he should either refuse to pay for this EICR, or obtain a refund as the report isn't worth the paper that it's printed on. I would also advise that the installation be retested by a reputable contractor so that its true condition may be ascertained. I would further advise the property owner to make a complaint to SELECT whom I'm sure will be aghast.
