RCD protection in an IT run office

Inspection and testing requires very considerable experience, arguably more so than new installation work.

I agree and the standard BS7671 states this in a roundabout way. But the market will not give you that. The perception by those that have to pay for this service, is that Periodic Inspection is low level, low expectation and low price. It is viewed as an obstacle to be avoided or to magic away by paying the least amount possible, as most of  the time the requirement is forced.  Conversely, Installation work is far more profitable.


There has been a large amount of EICR P*RN posted here lately. As installation work is far more profitable it is not so much of a surprise if a firm manipulates this market to strike the balance. Sauce for the Goose and all that. At the other end, I know of firms that use Periodic Inspection jobs to keep busy  the low level operatives who are not capable of producing profitable installation work. One thing they are good at is filling in all those boxes on a tablet on site very quickly.   That they then routinely condemn everything is then seen as a win bonus situation by the employer. A particular cheeky one is the certificate software that "calculates" R1+R2 after they have measured Zs with their multifunction, low current/ no trip test, then magically "fails" the circuit on "higher than expected R1+R2 reading" and a Brucy Bonus of further investigation remedial work.. Why someone is "claiming" they have measured R1+R2 during periodic inspection when they have measured a healthy Zs, is beyond me, but is perhaps an indicator that they should not be doing this type of work in the first place.

Inspection and testing requires very considerable experience, arguably more so than new installation work.

I agree and the standard BS7671 states this in a roundabout way. But the market will not give you that. The perception by those that have to pay for this service, is that Periodic Inspection is low level, low expectation and low price. It is viewed as an obstacle to be avoided or to magic away by paying the least amount possible, as most of  the time the requirement is forced.  Conversely, Installation work is far more profitable.


There has been a large amount of EICR P*RN posted here lately. As installation work is far more profitable it is not so much of a surprise if a firm manipulates this market to strike the balance. Sauce for the Goose and all that. At the other end, I know of firms that use Periodic Inspection jobs to keep busy  the low level operatives who are not capable of producing profitable installation work. One thing they are good at is filling in all those boxes on a tablet on site very quickly.   That they then routinely condemn everything is then seen as a win bonus situation by the employer. A particular cheeky one is the certificate software that "calculates" R1+R2 after they have measured Zs with their multifunction, low current/ no trip test, then magically "fails" the circuit on "higher than expected R1+R2 reading" and a Brucy Bonus of further investigation remedial work.. Why someone is "claiming" they have measured R1+R2 during periodic inspection when they have measured a healthy Zs, is beyond me, but is perhaps an indicator that they should not be doing this type of work in the first place.