Shock Likelihood at Switch.

And as to any recipients of a Satisfactory EICR endorsed with C3 "improvement recommended" or the earlier version of Satisfactory PIR  endorsed with 2 "requires improvement", in the last 30 or more years of reviewing these and their subsequent report after the recommended interval, I've yet to see one out of the many hundreds, that the second report doesn't pick up the same, un-improved items.


There is absolutely no incentive for the recipient to do anything about remedial work because as far as they are concerned, the compiler has issued a document with the front page declaration of it being satisfactory............. They simply pass it on to the enforcing body (insurer, Local Authority etc) who required the piece of paper, who in turn files it under "satisfactory".It is not their job to question the competence or accuracy of the document, they at best rely on the compiler being "approved" by a scheme.


It only ever gets read again when produced as "exhibit A"..........


Should the enforcing body representative be asked when "gripping the bar" why they accepted it, their response is simply that "what more could we have been reasonably expected to do, having already restricted the reports to a scheme member?". Now if the scheme has approved someone that clearly isn't up to scratch, perhaps the scheme should be asked to join me in gripping the bar?


In turn, the scheme representative will refer to their "guidance notes" and then invite the compiler to take his place in the bar gripping experience.


Regards


BOD

And as to any recipients of a Satisfactory EICR endorsed with C3 "improvement recommended" or the earlier version of Satisfactory PIR  endorsed with 2 "requires improvement", in the last 30 or more years of reviewing these and their subsequent report after the recommended interval, I've yet to see one out of the many hundreds, that the second report doesn't pick up the same, un-improved items.


There is absolutely no incentive for the recipient to do anything about remedial work because as far as they are concerned, the compiler has issued a document with the front page declaration of it being satisfactory............. They simply pass it on to the enforcing body (insurer, Local Authority etc) who required the piece of paper, who in turn files it under "satisfactory".It is not their job to question the competence or accuracy of the document, they at best rely on the compiler being "approved" by a scheme.


It only ever gets read again when produced as "exhibit A"..........


Should the enforcing body representative be asked when "gripping the bar" why they accepted it, their response is simply that "what more could we have been reasonably expected to do, having already restricted the reports to a scheme member?". Now if the scheme has approved someone that clearly isn't up to scratch, perhaps the scheme should be asked to join me in gripping the bar?


In turn, the scheme representative will refer to their "guidance notes" and then invite the compiler to take his place in the bar gripping experience.


Regards


BOD