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.

On the face of it, an amended EICR is a good solution, but I agree with OlympusMons. It is generally bad practice to amend paperwork without an obvious paper trail. Presumably the electrician recorded FI for the DNO's tackle. Even if the FI had referred to part of the client's installation, there was no requirement for the same electrician to make the further investigations. If the further investigations were satisfactory, how should they be recorded? One could possibly use the model forms, but freehand might be easier. An EICR does not have to be made using the model forms.


What should happen next? Get a new letting agent!

So this dodgy practice is endemic and actively encouraged on an IET website.


There really is no hope.

AJJewsbury:

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 didn't think for a moment you'd recommend a new report Andy :)

Thanks everyone, for lots of constructive input. Clearly the consensus is that the electrician is more in alignment than the letting agent, although I suppose you're all electricians, ahem :). Yes, a possible fused neutral was one of the potential issues (UKPN dismantled to check, it wasn't, bit annoying they don't sticker it to say!), the other was an apparent oil leak that turned out to be ?Denso? tape wrapped round the cable, for no clear reason (I'm pretty sure it was already there when I moved in in 1987, so who knows). The email from UKPN said: "With regards to the UK Power Networks engineers visit to your premises on the 8^th October 2020, the engineers report states that your main service head is in very good condition with no signs of any bitumen leaking, he checked all of the screws for tightness which were all secure and no further work is required from UK Power Networks. With regards to the conditioning report this should be produced for you by your own electrician". There's a case number for reference. The first para seems clear and not too technical for agent or tenant, although it doesn't mention the (un)fused neutral. The latter sentence seems be them suggesting the EICR is updated or reissued.

In preceding telco with UKPN operator (very civil), she sounded a little bemused re this paperchase, and also remarked that they had noted a rise in call outs for checks, but were unaware of, and hadn't linked it to, the new rental legislation. Although not a problem of their making, a small change in UKPN process, to issue something after a check, might resolve the conundrum that the electrician can flag up the "supply", but can't fix it, nor formally confirm it's ok?

In the short term, I guess I'm still stuck, other than pointing out to the agent they're wrong and it's legal, or ask the electrician to recheck (he's not into amending or reissuing, along with some of you folk).

So this dodgy practice is endemic and actively encouraged on an IET website. There really is no hope.

I think I'm missing something here - 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?


  - Andy.

"Although not a problem of their making"


There was no problem. 


Regards, UKPN

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.

You’re doing better than me, I emailed photos of the three phase intake in the cellar of an Indian restaurant that also has the neighbouring Chinese take away supply looped through it showing all the bitumen that had run out of it solidified on the floor and the DNO replied saying they would not come out to check it unless it was actually hot and smoking.


Not feeling the urge to sit in the cellar watching it all through a busy Friday or Saturday night I left it alone as I had done my bit.