STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR PERIODIC INSPECTION AND TESTING OF ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS IN DWELLINGS

Lol...... I think that there are three general views......"come out of 15 year B&B" ? That sounds like a rental at her majesty's secure lock-up...

1. Publish

2. heavy tactics

3. keep hold of the report, pass a summary to their insurance company if known and walk away

I think number three is the most sensible option. Hold onto the moral high ground while making sure that their stupidity is over ridden by a modicum of safety and pass a summary report onto their insurance company.

Its only a days money and there's unlikely to be no continued aggrivation...he said!


Legh

I do not have an issue with payment as I select my customers wisely. Very Very Very rare I get a problem, OK some pay a bit slow but a gentle word often works.

I would say within a week usually if a SATISFACTORY or exceptionally a bit longer if client agrees.

An UNSTISFACTORY needs immediate reporting, initially word of mouth and promptly backed up in writing.

You need to be fair and responsible both to yourself and your client (and users).

Thank you to all those that have supplied feedback so far. I have updated the document to reflect the feedback I have received.


I would value any further critical feedback any forum members may have?

Many thanks for the feedback received so far.



I have updated the specification to include the feedback received. If you email me I will send you the updated spec. for further technical scrutiny.


My email is      info@astutetechnicalservices.co.uk  .


Thanks JP

Many thanks for all the feedback from forum members.


I have been amending the document as the feedback arrives in my inbox. 


I think I am almost the there and have updated the document this morning.


If I have not sent you this mornings edition please email me for a copy?  My email address is info@astutetechnicalservices.co.uk 


Regards  JP

Hi John.

I would be interested in your opinion/document. It’s certainly true that a level playing field would be useful.

I have regularly come across EICR reports which have been done so badly that they are not worth the paper. It’s not so unusual to find “LIM” in nearly every results field except perhaps sockets Zs and a service head Ze. - I am hoping that this problem is reducing, but I have not seen much sign of it.

Meanwhile, I've come to do work in houses which purportedly hold a "satisfactory" EICR (I’ve been given copy of), and have subsequently spent a week at the property fixing a huge list of C2 and even really gross and dangerous C1 faults. - Meanwhile the owner understandably believes  "It's all OK, we had a "safety certificate".

Some years ago there were even "reverse auctions" for lowest-cost EICR's bids by estate and property agents.
Personally I always tell a customer even in a smallish UK house, unless it's brand new, that I expect an EICR to be a full and very exhausting day. It is. I'm likely to still be doing the paperwork at 11:30PM.
It seems that there will remain homeowners and landlords who want the signature at lowest cost, as if this absolves them from responsibility. - Well, it does, kind of, but I'm not sure those doing the "drive-by" EICR understand that they now carry the can. 


I'll email. Rgds

"Standard Specification for Periodic Inspection ...in Dwellings"  =  what you agreed with the Client in advance.

Anything else is not achievable with a format as prescribed by BS7671.

Any attempt to do so will simply be out maneuvered by people simply making it all up and inviting you to prove a negative after the event. The veracity or otherwise of what is produced will be exactly the same as present outcomes.


That people are referencing this oven-ready "Satisfactory EICR"  and bemoaning the lack of a suitable sum for "doing it properly"- what ever doing it properly is- indicates that something else separate to an EICR is required for rental dwellings and most likely dwellings generally. It requires something simple, prescriptive and brutal; a bit like a car MOT. Its framework should not be related in any way to rules applicable to new works; so the bulk of BS7671 will likely not be relevant. The fundamentals of Chapter 13 would help form the requirements, but the pass/fail precipice would be the laws of electrical theory and a minimum requirement of what is safe and what is not. With this approach you would likely have to form the requirements to have a fairly brutal "deemed to be safe" high bar. So, just for example, absolute minimums would be 30mA RCD upfront of the lot ? Protective earth bonds that are truly accessible [regardless they being required or not, they just have to be there], where you can detach each end to prove they are real and continuous; no exposed live parts, no damaged accessories,no damaged switch-gear, no burning or melting, ADS present on each circuit and a CPC present on all circuits.


The above would be one or two pages of A4 with very minimal information, preformed/standard limit to what degree things are assessed, making it clear this is very different territory to your historical periodic inspection; it is an overview to a tight remit . Likely just tick boxes...a bit like Gas Landlord Safety Certificates. 2 hrs tops in and out for your standard 3 bed terrace. If it fails, you charge for a revisit, do enough so that the relevant boxes gets a tick rather than a cross and re-issue the "cert". I suppose the outcome can be a simple choice "adequate safety" or "inadequate safety". It would be called "Electrical Safety Cert".


You could limit this brutal new regime to Installations that have gone native. There are quite a lot of them. The ones that could be spared are perhaps new builds that do have a provable BS7671 paper trail [ likely also building regs trail]. These could be subject to the usual BS7671 Periodic Regime. However, thereafter, many agencies may well have got used to the new brutal assessment, so on the new "Electrical Safety Cert"  there can be an additional section that states the date of original EIWC , any subsequent BS7671 certs or EICRs. These will supersede the more brutal requirements dished out to Installs that have "gone native", allowing the boxes to be ticked. These BS7671 certs/reports referenced would have to be 100% available at all times.


It could be quite a satisfying, sadistic approach to Installations that have the audacity to not have been designed, installed and constructed to BS7671. Look at it as being a form of punishment.