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

what's dodgy about issuing a report that correctly describes the condition of the said installation, as on the said inspection date, according to the currently best available information?

 

Nothing at all. In fact, that is exactly what OPs electrician did.


Now we have pressure to be dodgy, or , if you prefer, in this particular instance, to flirt with the cutting edge of worst practice as a means to someones else's end. Meanwhile, the electrician takes all the risk. The Report verdict cannot be changed. It is advice. The FI advice was fulfilled. Turn this  another way, what would happen if the FI did reveal danger and the DNO affected repair? Would you, the Inspector, make a judgment on a repair by someone else and then change a Report already issued? You would be presenting yourself as a higher authority than the supply authority. Talk of litigation is a distraction; most supply gear is, unfortunately, inside buildings and there is diligence in the supply head and cable being inspected and reported during an EICR. It was around 1990 that, what was ,effectively, periodic inspection of supply equipment when the meter was read, came to an end. So most are 30 years overdue.


The most remote line of litigation would likely come from some loss due to the Inspector not advising further investigation on a supply head that appeared to have an issue and it later went bang.


The second box on an EICR is for "authorising the issue" of the Report. It is a check for errors, as others have stated, it is usually the supervisor of a firm as a double check all the paw prints are in the correct place.  Once the Report is issued it should not be issued again, or as some would have it, amended. On this thin edge of the wedge, how far further will  you go? Issuing a "satisfactory EICR" on demand is dodgy practice and has been adopted by some as a career path.

 

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.

The least demanding and simplest approach? For this particular instance of an FI on supply gear being a trigger for unsatisfactory and, if using software EICR, the non dodgy method - if the covering letter approach is too much of a leap for some- is simply, leave the Report verdict and dates and observations all as it was issued. But then, in the summary of inspection [if it has not already been done] state something along the lines of "the verdict of this Report would have been Satisfactory had further investigation of the service head and supply cable not been required. Subsequently the supply authority have attended to the FI [item numbered xxx] in a satisfactory manner evidenced by their email stating their equipment has now been inspected and found to be in good condition. Reference email dated "such and such". Most software has ability to add a "comments" page. There may be an existing one on the Report. So then , why not add a copy and paste of the email and a note from inspector that the result of the further investigation by the supply authority is satisfactory.


Multiple use of the word "satisfactory", but not as a verdict and definitely not as "satisfactory for continued service" ,in the OP context, should make the Agents eyes glaze over and behave themselves. The Inspector has advised in their remit of "BS7671 land" and the supply authority has advised on theirs.

what's dodgy about issuing a report that correctly describes the condition of the said installation, as on the said inspection date, according to the currently best available information?

 

Nothing at all. In fact, that is exactly what OPs electrician did.


Now we have pressure to be dodgy, or , if you prefer, in this particular instance, to flirt with the cutting edge of worst practice as a means to someones else's end. Meanwhile, the electrician takes all the risk. The Report verdict cannot be changed. It is advice. The FI advice was fulfilled. Turn this  another way, what would happen if the FI did reveal danger and the DNO affected repair? Would you, the Inspector, make a judgment on a repair by someone else and then change a Report already issued? You would be presenting yourself as a higher authority than the supply authority. Talk of litigation is a distraction; most supply gear is, unfortunately, inside buildings and there is diligence in the supply head and cable being inspected and reported during an EICR. It was around 1990 that, what was ,effectively, periodic inspection of supply equipment when the meter was read, came to an end. So most are 30 years overdue.


The most remote line of litigation would likely come from some loss due to the Inspector not advising further investigation on a supply head that appeared to have an issue and it later went bang.


The second box on an EICR is for "authorising the issue" of the Report. It is a check for errors, as others have stated, it is usually the supervisor of a firm as a double check all the paw prints are in the correct place.  Once the Report is issued it should not be issued again, or as some would have it, amended. On this thin edge of the wedge, how far further will  you go? Issuing a "satisfactory EICR" on demand is dodgy practice and has been adopted by some as a career path.

 

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.

The least demanding and simplest approach? For this particular instance of an FI on supply gear being a trigger for unsatisfactory and, if using software EICR, the non dodgy method - if the covering letter approach is too much of a leap for some- is simply, leave the Report verdict and dates and observations all as it was issued. But then, in the summary of inspection [if it has not already been done] state something along the lines of "the verdict of this Report would have been Satisfactory had further investigation of the service head and supply cable not been required. Subsequently the supply authority have attended to the FI [item numbered xxx] in a satisfactory manner evidenced by their email stating their equipment has now been inspected and found to be in good condition. Reference email dated "such and such". Most software has ability to add a "comments" page. There may be an existing one on the Report. So then , why not add a copy and paste of the email and a note from inspector that the result of the further investigation by the supply authority is satisfactory.


Multiple use of the word "satisfactory", but not as a verdict and definitely not as "satisfactory for continued service" ,in the OP context, should make the Agents eyes glaze over and behave themselves. The Inspector has advised in their remit of "BS7671 land" and the supply authority has advised on theirs.