Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 9 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 879 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Period inspection interval

lyledunn
I am just modifying my condition report templates. I am going to include the the requirements of 653.4 which requires an explanation to support the period determined to the next inspection. That requirement doesn’t seem to have been included in the model form in Appendix 6. Is it included in the NICEIC, NAPIT etc forms?

seems to me that is entirely reasonable to require an explanation as it would, at least for work premises, have cost as well as legal implications.
  • 0
    Interesting point. I normally put an explanation in my covering letter; for me it was normally private landlords who queried why they were “not getting five years” (between reports presumably!). It was as a result of these queries I started offering an explanation if the re-inspection period was shorter than might normally be expected.
  • 0
    I have had to have serious debates with myself over this issue 


    For example I prepared some EICRs for some housing association houses built in the 1970’s that originally had electrically heated forced air heating systems that have been replaced with gas central heating, the circuits to these have been “repurposed”, ring circuits have been split into radials rather than repaired, things have been messed about with by electricians and tenants such as shower circuits being added.


    Basically they are on the point of needing rewiring, but you cannot say they are actually dangerous, so I ended up saying two to five years depending on what state they are in with a recommendation that rewiring should be considered.


    Trying to put it’s not dangerous at the moment, but think about replacing it is difficult to put into words, particularly when you are actually advising that a whole estate of houses is on the cusp of needing rewiring.


    The silly part is the HA get a EICR prepared at every change of tenancy or ten years, so some of their properties that have changes in tenancy have been inspected several times in the same year, whilst others have not been checked for the best part of ten years.


    Andy Betteridge
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Sparkingchip:

    Trying to put it’s not dangerous at the moment, but think about replacing it is difficult to put into words, particularly when you are actually advising that a whole estate of houses is on the cusp of needing rewiring.


     




     

    FOC

    "Functionally, technically and commercially life expired"


    OMS
  • 0
    That says it without wasting any breath.


    Andy B.
  • 0
    At what stage does inspection trump testing? So you have an installation with rusty backboxes, no grommets or fly-leads, short tails, loads of spurs off a small ring; but R1+R2, polarity, and Zs are satisfactory. Do you give a short-term pass or recommend a re-wire?
  • 0
    Inspection should always trump testing. 


    Andy B.
  • 0

    Sparkingchip:

    Inspection should always trump testing. 




    I am wary of using terms such as "always" and "never", but I think that's correct; which is why I am spending a day a week re-wiring daughter's house even though all tests were satisfactory.


    Of course, had I submitted an unsatisfactory EICR to a paying customer, it would have been a very different matter.


    So much for the notion of the cobbler's children's shoes! ?


    ETA: at the end of all this, whilst there will now be enough sockets in the office, and lighting will have been improved, the users will notice no difference.

  • 0
    You can have a cable that has been chewed by vermin such as rats resulting in a live copper conductor being exposed, inspection identifies it as clearly dangerous, a code one defect.


    But it can easily pass all the required testing including insulation testing.


    Therefore inspection should always trumps testing, however testing may identify something that is not cleary visible, so should not be omitted.


    Andy Betteridge.

  • 0
    Spot on there Sparking.

    Newbies to to lose sight on Inspection and over rely on testing.

    Both have their place just as you have said.


    Chris, yes the cobblers childrens shoes , I am guilty as charged, ask my daughter. LOL.

Community Rules & Guidelines