Is a QS entitled to sign off an EICR?

So the consensus seems to be that an EICR must be signed by the inspector. Any dissenters?

What is the role of the QS in the compilation of an EICR unless he is present for at least some of it? How can he take responsibility for actions and decisions he has not seen and has little control over ?

I would say this supervisor has very little control, unless they are also the Duty Holder and only then if they own the Business also. However, a good QS should be able to quickly scan and sample the Report or the Certificate for obvious errors and impossibilities or request a bit more info on what was actually done or why something is being claimed. Problem with this is that the employer will see this as wasted time if the QS has to continually re draught others Reports and Certificates to something more plausable and the QS will likely get a bit of a talking too along the lines of this is not what I am paying you for.

Kind of you Chris to suggest I might employ an incompetent inspector, so I expect this is a wind-up! DZelectrical, not quite right! You are unlikely to find me in a trade listing or social media type advert.


As I do not take part in the QS scheme either, I can only comment on documents I have, of which there are a pile and growing. I have one electronically generated one with the QS signature missing, although there is a name and no mention of the inspector at all. The contents are basically rubbish, and I am even suspicious of the measurements as they do not tie up well with my mind's eye view of the premises, although I have not seen it directly. There is a second similar which has a QS name and signature, but again no Inspector. Lack of RCDs is coded C1, fault protection is by ADS only is stated not EEBADS. New CU quote enclosed. Both have a number of other question mark items that I will not list.


In my view both of these EICRs are not competent, not compliant with BS7671, and should result in some fairly serious penalty for the contractors involved. Both are for new rentals recently. I have even had a suspicion that the QS may no longer work for this contractor, yet to be verified, hence the lack of signature. Of course, it could be an oversight, but a highly non-compliant one.


I have been collecting a whole lot of evidence that there are serious difficulties with various parts of the industry, not because I have any grudge against anyone in particular, but because so many things seem to be going on which are likely to bring everyone into disrepute at best and serious trouble at worst. I believe it is necessary to have reliable and honest electricians for the good of society as a whole. If this breaks down it will become a "free for all" and the real cowboys will win over everyone else. This must not happen.

In my view Alcomax that is not the proper role of the QS, and it does not fulfil the definition above. He is singularly and completely responsible for quality control of installations. I have yet to see that anywhere. He is often responsible for filling in the forms in the office (much neater!) from rough notes, meter data and other rather nebulous information. If it is incomplete he may well think of something (polite term). He will often sign for inspection results from someone who did or did not take part in the installation, without ever seeing it. No one of responsibility ever does that in my experience, it implies total trust in the installers etc. Hm. The real question is could I do this job, given the above requirements. The answer is no, unless I also had complete control of what was being done, and thus I would regularly be on site. Thus I could not reasonably do many small jobs at once, and would not meet the employers idea of my purpose. He could probably get BS9000 quality accreditation fairly easily, but this is of no concern so procedures would be unimportant, the only requirment being my signature. In principle I am accepting a huge responsibility for an uncontrolled operation, by selling my name. No that does not happen to me. But this is what is happening, we all see it, we must push back.

It is what it is , the QS thing. It is a means to an end to accreditation of something or other. We live in a permissive society where some reward is there for the taking if you do not get caught. The most immediate and loudest demand is what drives the level of control; "that is a cost too much"/ "that applies to others , not me". You can have all the notional rules, regs and laws you want, but if there is really no deterrent....


Completely off topic, but for example; cars breaking speed limits causes casualties. So lets fit speed cameras. Public do not like speed cameras because they get caught. Solution? Remove speed cameras.

Electrical Work: We are a bit worried about domestic installation work not being safe. Lets have a scheme where only suitably qualified electricians can self certify to building regs?  Er, if you do that, 80% of "electricians" will be at the Job Centre signing on by the end of 2006. Solution? Let them all into the new schemes and we will worry about all that later.

Isn't the point though that EICRs do not come under the registration schemes - unless they pretend they do.?

davezawadi (David Stone):

Kind of you Chris to suggest I might employ an incompetent inspector, so I expect this is a wind-up!

Just the first couple of letters which popped into my feeble mind! ? In any event, I am the hypothetical incompetent inspector.

 

Alcomax:

Completely off topic, but for example; cars breaking speed limits causes casualties. So lets fit speed cameras. Public do not like speed cameras because they get caught. Solution? Remove speed cameras.

How about: shoddy electrical installations in the private rented sector cause casualties; so let's inspect them. Landlords do not like inspections because they get ripped off. So landlords stop getting inspections. Or find compliant inspectors.


Unfortunately, the experience with Part P schemes suggests that a register of approved inspectors is not the answer.

PartP was designed to have no effect on members of "Schemes" by the schemes! It was designed to make more people join a scheme and had nothing to do with competence or safety at all, just filling some bank accounts. Is there any evidence that PartP has improved any safety from accident statistics? No, but if anything they have got a bit worse, not a lot but then there are few accidents anyway.


I suggest we work it the other way. Electricians who are good and competent probably have qualifications, let us make a public list of those with qualifications, and try to improve the industry with CPD, catchup courses etc, giving real qualifications to those who need them. Not too hard, not too expensive, and effective. We can discuss the levels required later, but it is working in the right direction. You will notice the IET webinars doing this already.


The hard one is not general installation work, it is EICR work. Do we need the EICR, I think we do. Is it working properly, all good, no problems with the quality of reports? No, it is not, because it is being seriously misused by sharks. Everyone here has seen what is happening in the last week. Has it pricked a few consciences, I wonder? The fix is easy, the inspector or his company or anyone in any way connected, may not repair any defects listed on an EICR. The inspector is therefore isolated from his findings, he does not care if good or bad, except that they are correct. There needs to be a mechanism to report defective reports to the listing body and a comeback and professional code. Just like Chartered Engineers and the IET. If you are doing bad stuff you can be sanctioned, in other words, there are teeth. The biggest sanction would be delisting as competent, most would be very careful to avoid this as their business would immediately collapse.


I wonder what you all think?

Part P has nothing to do with it.

Part P is a single sentence Building Regulation stating that work must ensure protection of people from fire or injury.


The registration bodies were introduced in 2005 to regulate ancillary trades and DIYers who do certain types of electrical work.

Then in 2013 in England, those types of work were so reduced that the ancillary trades and DIYers were effectively removed from the need to register - leaving only actual electricians (and plumbers fitting new electric shower circuits). 


Now there is the Landlords Inspection requirements which do not mention EICRs but everyone assumes that this is what is required because there is nothing else.

That absolutely anyone may (is allowed to) carry out EICRs without restriction is obviously not the ideal situation.


It is odd how those who make the rules do not seem to know how things work.

They might as well have passed a law prohibiting unscrupulous landlords with no definitions nor means of determining the situation and enforcing it.