Correct Paperwork for Tenanted Property after UKPN call-out for EICR?

EICRs are reports on the condition of an installation on the day it was done, signed and dated. I think it unfair to ask the electrician to issue a new EICR at a later date without checking that nothing has changed in the interim, it is extra time and expense which is totally unnecessary. It could be up to 28 days since the report was issued, the time in which any remedial works should have been completed. All that is needed is that there is a "paper" trail, to prove that any required remedial work or, more likely in this case, that "further Investigation" was done. A covering note from the electrician saying he now believes any code on the EICR is now not relevant should suffice. But to issue a new "satisfactory" EICR up to a month after testing/inspecting seems a bit much to ask. You can see why managing agents want a "satisfactory" EICR, it is one document that they can email to a tenant if asked for it, not possibly a folder full of different pieces of information. But that is their preference, and it is not a requirement of the legislation.

I didn't mean suggest that a whole new report be produced as if for a later inspection - quite the contrary - I'd expect the new report to have the same 'inspected and tested' date as the original - only the 'report authorised for issue' date would be later. A bit like 'corrigendum' if you like. I agree where there are remedials to do, the original EICR (listing specific failures) and corresponding EICs (or MWCs) to address each of the listed failures would be perfectly satisfactory. After all all those are produced by and signed by a 'qualified person' that the The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector Regulations demand. What I think wouldn't be satisfactory would be the original EICR plus some text e-mailed from a call centre which may or may not correctly address the issue the EICR raised. For instance say the EICR noted that there might be a fuse in the earthed neutral of the supply and the e-mail said something like 'Earthing checked and Ze confirmed to be below 0.35 Ohms'  - how would an ordinary person know or not that they added up to a satisfactory - I suggest they wouldn't - you need the 'qualified' person to make that overall decision.


I imagined that these days of electronic documentations, a quick edit and re-issue would have been the least demanding and simplest approach - but if you're still working with pen and carbon pads and a re-issue would be a disproportionate amount of work, then yes a covering letter instead might well serve - provided it was signed by the someone qualified enough to say that the overall situation was satisfactory. I'm not suggesting that this extra work should be done by the electrician free of charge either - that's a matter of contract between them and the customer.


This particular situation is interesting though - if the only cause of the unsatisfactory was the DNO/supplier's equipment - there is an argument that the electrician over-stepped the mark by saying it was unsatisfactory, since that equipment is clearly outside the scope of BS 7671. The standard check-lists are an obvious confusion on that point, but I'm sure we've discussed that before here and concluded that while the DNO/suppliers equipment should be visually checked and any apparent problem noted, it shouldn't give rise to a 'code' and hence shouldn't reflect on the overall satisfactory/unsatisfactory status. A litigation minded customer might well take the attitude that an error had been committed and thus expect it to be corrected at the Electrician's own expense. I didn't want to push that point, as it's clearly a good idea from an overall safety point of view to not leave any obvious dangers ignored regardless of the niceties of scope - but some customers might think otherwise when there's money involved. Maybe the sort of situation where a bit of goodwill in the sort term can avoid a lot of expense in the longer.


   - Andy.

EICRs are reports on the condition of an installation on the day it was done, signed and dated. I think it unfair to ask the electrician to issue a new EICR at a later date without checking that nothing has changed in the interim, it is extra time and expense which is totally unnecessary. It could be up to 28 days since the report was issued, the time in which any remedial works should have been completed. All that is needed is that there is a "paper" trail, to prove that any required remedial work or, more likely in this case, that "further Investigation" was done. A covering note from the electrician saying he now believes any code on the EICR is now not relevant should suffice. But to issue a new "satisfactory" EICR up to a month after testing/inspecting seems a bit much to ask. You can see why managing agents want a "satisfactory" EICR, it is one document that they can email to a tenant if asked for it, not possibly a folder full of different pieces of information. But that is their preference, and it is not a requirement of the legislation.

I didn't mean suggest that a whole new report be produced as if for a later inspection - quite the contrary - I'd expect the new report to have the same 'inspected and tested' date as the original - only the 'report authorised for issue' date would be later. A bit like 'corrigendum' if you like. I agree where there are remedials to do, the original EICR (listing specific failures) and corresponding EICs (or MWCs) to address each of the listed failures would be perfectly satisfactory. After all all those are produced by and signed by a 'qualified person' that the The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector Regulations demand. What I think wouldn't be satisfactory would be the original EICR plus some text e-mailed from a call centre which may or may not correctly address the issue the EICR raised. For instance say the EICR noted that there might be a fuse in the earthed neutral of the supply and the e-mail said something like 'Earthing checked and Ze confirmed to be below 0.35 Ohms'  - how would an ordinary person know or not that they added up to a satisfactory - I suggest they wouldn't - you need the 'qualified' person to make that overall decision.


I imagined that these days of electronic documentations, a quick edit and re-issue would have been the least demanding and simplest approach - but if you're still working with pen and carbon pads and a re-issue would be a disproportionate amount of work, then yes a covering letter instead might well serve - provided it was signed by the someone qualified enough to say that the overall situation was satisfactory. I'm not suggesting that this extra work should be done by the electrician free of charge either - that's a matter of contract between them and the customer.


This particular situation is interesting though - if the only cause of the unsatisfactory was the DNO/supplier's equipment - there is an argument that the electrician over-stepped the mark by saying it was unsatisfactory, since that equipment is clearly outside the scope of BS 7671. The standard check-lists are an obvious confusion on that point, but I'm sure we've discussed that before here and concluded that while the DNO/suppliers equipment should be visually checked and any apparent problem noted, it shouldn't give rise to a 'code' and hence shouldn't reflect on the overall satisfactory/unsatisfactory status. A litigation minded customer might well take the attitude that an error had been committed and thus expect it to be corrected at the Electrician's own expense. I didn't want to push that point, as it's clearly a good idea from an overall safety point of view to not leave any obvious dangers ignored regardless of the niceties of scope - but some customers might think otherwise when there's money involved. Maybe the sort of situation where a bit of goodwill in the sort term can avoid a lot of expense in the longer.


   - Andy.