EICR

That is a typical EICR from many places. A high percentage of EICRs are improperly done, have made up test results, and not worth anything. Doing the job is not difficult, but it does mean knowing the regs and typical problems. It does NOT mean dismantling the entire installation. The reason for this? The EICR is used as a way to get remedial work, hence my continuous suggestion that the inspecting company may not do remedials, then there is no point in doing poor EICRs! JP has found that this model works, so why not change the law?

I have just completed the I&T for a HMO licence EICR and I am stating the required retest period as twenty eight days; and I can justify it.

Andy B


In my view you are wrong to put down 28 days for a retest!


Why did you do that?

Just for starters:

Andy


Did you read the statement next to your recommendation for the date for the next test that says " Subject to the necessary action being taken I recommend that the installation is further inspected and tested by...."


So why only 28 days to the next inspection and test?

Because there’s 19 circuits spread across two consumer units, one of which doesn’t have any RCDs in it at all, so the circuits need reconfiguring to create 13 out of 19 allowing the consumer unit without any RCD protection to be taken out and thrown away. At the same time that rubber cooker circuit needs completely replacing.


Once it is tidied up only 4 of the 19 circuits will remain untouched and still have the same characteristics, so the current EICR will be virtually null and void.


It will need new paperwork detailing the installation after the repairs with a completely new schedule of inspections and test results, the current EICR will be relegated to being a historical document, not something that genuinely details the condition of the installation that will be valid for five years.


Twenty eight days is the legal timeframe for getting the repairs carried out, so if the installation is still as it is now after the 15th of next month the landlord may find the council taking enforcement action.


A label on the consumer units stating a five year retest period would be completely misleading. Three Bulgarians, a Spanish and a German guy living in a HMO are not going to understand the English practice of putting labels on dangerous electrical installations that give the impression they are going to be safe for at least the next five years.

Andy

How did you code the missing connection? Was it OK before you dismantled it? The rubber cable is deteriorated but what code is that? Putting retest in 28 days is nonsense, a new EICR is NOT required, an EIC may be. The legislation does not say that a clear EICR is required, just that one must be done, and then the repairations put in place and certificates issued.


As to the RCD situation, I suggest a 30mA up-front in the tails is perfectly adequate. Unless there are other problems you do not need to change the CU, and presumably, add AFDDs and surge protection. That is simply making work which I suspect you want to carry out. It is this kind of thing that makes the "cowboys" get work, he does the cooker cable for £100 and issues a cert. You demand £3000 for fancy CU etc. What does the Landlord do, I think you know the answer! An EICR does not mean make equal to a new installation, as instructed by BS7671.

"An EICR does not mean make equal to a new installation, as instructed by BS7671."


Is exactly the point and I will state again that attempting to "regularise" an existing Installation with an oven ready "satisfactory report" is incorrect and, in any event, is likely to come back at some time in the future and bite you where the sun does not shine. The new rental law is clear on there being a Report and then Installation Certificates [ minor or full] for any remedial works after , if appropriate. The Report is a snapshot in time, with that it also serves as limiting liability of the Inspector. That process should not be mucked about with to serve some other agenda or misunderstanding.


This is not a new problem. I know it was driven initially by housing associations and letting agents insisting on Oven Ready Satisfactory Reports; any EIWCerts or Minor Works Certs would be torn up and thrown in the bin, described as useless and then a demand that the contractor issue a "satisfactory report". It has been going on for twenty years and has unfortunately become de facto practice for many contractors. Indeed NICEIC, as they were in early 2000's, pretty much accepted this bodge as a fait acompli; it was endemic and they found it difficult to get their contractors implementing the BS7671 way of periodic inspection with the remedial work being then treated purely as initial verification [ new work] or maintenance work [repair/direct replacement of damaged accessory] and none of this "satisfactory report" nonsense after the event.


From the problem of the HMO , as described, a few things spring to mind; is this a new HMO?  If not, there would be existing Reports. In any event, the Report should stay as it is, unsatisfactory. Simply, your partial regularisation of it, by virtue of remedial work, will be documented by an Electrical Installation Certificate. That will have your revised circuit schedules and reflect the Installation in its revised configuration. Any next Inspection [ 3 to 5 years or whatever] will use this as a point of reference. That unsatisfactory EICR is relegated to a point of reference at that point in time it was conducted, reflecting its condition, at that time, and , importantly, being a demonstration of due diligence on your part for the rational for the subsequent remedial work.

I think that Sparkingchip is in danger of assuming the authority of the local authority.


The 2020 Regulations require:

(5) Where paragraph (4) applies, a private landlord must—

(a) obtain written confirmation from a qualified person that the further investigative or remedial work has been carried out and that—

(i) the electrical safety standards are met;


That could be in the form of a new EICR, but it could also be as simple as, "I John Smith confirm that I have undertaken the remedial work detailed in the report of 25 December 2020 and that the installation now meets the electrical safety standards."


The problem with Sparkingchip's approach is that he has now created a legal obligation upon the landlord to get a second EICR within 28 days and that is manifestly unreasonable.

No, if the installation cannot remain as it is without substantial repairs and cannot remain as it is how can you justify stating a five year retest period?


In the last few weeks I have put the retest period as ten years on a house purchasers EICR, the house was rewired four years ago, I&T revealed that the neutral conductor insulation had been cut through on the shower cable within shower unit when the sheath had been cut back so I sleeved it with heat shrink, also a CPC had fell out of the back of a socket which I found and secured in its terminal. That installation will be absolutely fine without being fully tested again for ten years.


I am not doing EICRs looking for work, but if an installation has a limited life it has a limited life and that needs recording and that’s not my fault.