My first EICR

[Manator]

A business friend of mine who owns quite a few houses asked me as a favour to do a EICR for him, at great distress I finally succumbed this weekend.

The installation is previous to the 16th edition, and there are only 3 circuits for the whole house, which is a three bedroom semi detached. Built in the early 1970's.

Circuit 1 is the cooker circuit, circuit 2 is the sockets (up and down) circuit 3 is the lighting (again up and down).

Previous additions include a new boiler fitted, and the plumber, or his electrician upgraded the bonding.

Anyway I found 15 C3 codes, and not a single code C1 or C2.

When I gave my report to my mate he showed me one that was done by a local DI, it showed at least 15 C1 results.

Now one thing I do know is that there is a clear definition of dangerous and not dangerous, regardless of what we all think.

A single lighting circuit for example is at best an inconvenience, certainly not dangerous, as is a single socket circuit.

Where do these people get their views or interpretations from?

The regulations are not retrospect and should not ever be confused with dangerous.

I do hope that he listens to my advise, and if he does I will personally put him in touch with a proper sparky who does domestics, who can rectify all my code 3's.

By the way I only gave a 3 year satisfactory result, the insulation will need to be regularly checked as it is close to the minimum, but could remain so for the next ten years.

 

[steptoe]

aren't you lucky, not going after these numpties week after week.!

I see this all the time.

headbang

 

[Manator]

I am just glad I do not do any domestics, Myself Sidewinder and KME have about 400 pages of instruction for the old PIR's, I have tried to condense this into a workable load for a future post, something like an introduction to testing. The majority of data we have built up is based on the old PIR format so will take some time to adapt to the new EICR format.

It looks like some will need this instruction as they are still confused by older installations, probably wired before they were even born.

If its safe, it does not matter to which regulation it was installed to.

 

[steptoe]

no need as the new EICR is designed with 5ww in mind, a tick box for everything so they dont have to think about anything!

 

[Steve3948]

I had a call from an electrician who had worked for me, saying the house he rented out had been tested and inspected on change of tenancy by the management company and their electrical contractor had failed the installation, which he thought odd as he had done all the work himself.

He emailed me the areas that needed to be corrected by said electrical contractor, which I found to be an absolute joke.

1. Downlights in kitchen (4 and 2 not working) should be replaced with fluorescent light, given Code 1.

2. 16mm

 

[Manator]

I am just flabbergasted, I seldom see this in the work I do, most reports are very accurate, the only differences between them are based on interpretation. I can live with that, and we do in fact discuss problems between ourselves. It just looks like the domestic market is taking a beating from ill informed testers.

 

[steptoe]

^^^^^^^^^

that is such an understatement it is scary!

 

[springcrocus]

You guys are lucky to even get the chance to see someone elses paperwork. Practically every job I go to there is never a report or a certificate (unless it's my own from a previous visit) even though there is clear evidence of recent work or "we had it checked a couple of years ago".

Even when I do my "Landlords Report" it appears the first thing the client does with the paperwork is to bin it after a few weeks. headbang

 

[Manator]

I did not know he had a report done and never saw it before I tested the house. He only told me afterwards. Just glad that I tested as I would any installation, yes I agree it does require some remedial work, yes it does not comply with current regs, yes I could rip apart the bodge jobs done, but my report is based on the safety, and continued use. Both pass (barely) but pass never the less without one single C2, and definitely not one C1

 

[Steve3948]

+1 Manator.

It's all about the safety, however for some I think they see it as a way of generating income.

 

[Sharpend]

I have subbed to numerous firms that allow the young and inexperienced to test. I am always taken back by their lack of interest in understanding of what they test or the result that they get. The attitude is as long as it meets with the Zs tabulated figure then fine, irrespective if the other results indicate something not quite right. As for them doing EICR's, it seems the culture to either blatantly ignore the findings and mark as Satisfactory or Fail everything to cover ones rearend. The problem lies with the QS system as they think that they don't take responsibility for the install or the report that they sign their name too? Either that or they think the company will offer protection should it all go belly up.

 

[Manator]

I think you are right Steve, I see test results almost every other day by engineers and they are 99% correct, no embellishments just facts, but then we are accountable and easily found out if we test anything wrongly.

 

[kerching]

This is my argument with the new codes only having 3 states. I think the removal of Code 4 was a retrograde step as , in my case, clients see a code 3 as needing to be done where in actual fact it is only that 'an improvement is recommended'.

Most of the reports I see are laughable. I particularly like insulation tests that are 'infinity' or even better still 'zero', Uo = 400V , BS3036 Code 1, continuity test on Water bond 'Ok' when there was no cable connected. Ditto for the Gas when there was no Gas on site, 'No 2 way switch on hall way, dangerous C2'...the list goes on ...and all these reports had been paid for, unfortunately!... :coat

 

[Manator]

I actually finished my report by going through each C3, I have no doubt that improvements can be made for instance the inclusion of RCD protection, but my report followed the principle objectives according BS7671, and one endorsement of these regulations are that previous installations are not deemed dangerous because they were installed to a previous edition.

| do think that limiting findings to just three basic categories is a mistake, the old PIR 4 code had a distinct two part definition.

You have to remember though that the best part of any report is your continuation sheets, and they are invaluable in a true representation of your findings.

 

[lineman]

Couldn't agree more. I do a lot of follow up work from EICR's and there is a massive difference from non-compliant and "dangerous" god knows what lads are being taught on these courses.

 

[PC Electrics]

You should remember that this problem isn't just limited to DIs. About 2 years ago I uploaded to here a copy of a PIR done by a local well known NIC registered firm. All "proper sparks" according to Steps definition (did an apprenticeship, loads of experience). It was liberally sprinkled with 1s and 2s that were complete tosh. In reality there wasn't a single 1 and only a couple of 2s.

Not to mention that 'visual' we were talking about only a couple of weeks ago.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Manator, what code do you give for no rcd protection on socket outlets that may be used for outside equipment ? Does it matter that the installation 'may' have been wired pre 14th edition ?

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was made at 23:19 ----------

Did this installation have local bonding to all pipework & all circuits within the bathroom ? As it does not have Rcd protection it should have that or the code should be higher than C3

 

[davetheglitz]

I recently found an NIC firm did an EICR for an old girl -

 

[steptoe]

Manator, what code do you give for no rcd protection on socket outlets that may be used for outside equipment ? Does it matter that the installation 'may' have been wired pre 14th edition ?---------- Post Auto-Merged at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was made at 23:19 ----------

Did this installation have local bonding to all pipework & all circuits within the bathroom ? As it does not have Rcd protection it should have that or the code should be higher than C3

why?

yes, it does matter what edition it was wired to,

why would all sockets that may be used outside need RCD protection? [pre edition]

when did RCD protection or all bathroom bonding become a requirement?

when did bathroom radiators need bonded?

when did bathroom lights need bonded?

when did lights need bonded to radiators in the bathroom become a requirement?

when did metal window frames not require to be bonded?

all Qs the 'competent' person should be asking himself,

and more.

 

[Manator]

Manator, what code do you give for no rcd protection on socket outlets that may be used for outside equipment ? Does it matter that the installation 'may' have been wired pre 14th edition ?---------- Post Auto-Merged at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was made at 23:19 ----------

Did this installation have local bonding to all pipework & all circuits within the bathroom ? As it does not have Rcd protection it should have that or the code should be higher than C3

No RCD is only a C3, a couple of years ago a boiler was added to the house and although no local isolation they did upgrade the bonding, albeit a little off course.