EICR waddaya fink?

I have an EICR which was done for a client prior a house sale.

NICEIC approved contractor.

Part 3 summary states "satisfactory apart from items listed"


Overall assessment SATISFACTORY.


3 items listed in part 6 al of them awarded a C2.


This was given to me buy the buyer who needed it for his solicitor on purchase a few months back.


I have yet to read thru the report yet.


I`d need to ask the buyer`s permission before I offer a copy to Dave Z in his crusade and I might have to redact some details as well.


Initial comments?
  • Toilet paper.


    You cannot have a "satisfactory" EICR with any C2s or FIs on it.
  • That is a weird one. Maybe it is someone who has not updated their PIR technique from the old coding of 1,2,3,4,  where "coded 2" were "requires improvement".  Bananas. They need saving from themselves before they end up in a lot of trouble.
  • I agree that contractors need saving from themselves. It's expected of them to be able to carry out EICR's from their clients and hey don't want to let in another contractor. Totally understandable but leads to a right mess when rumbled by a competent eicr'er. The 2391 exam is not good enough and the current situation with the private rented sector is highlighting this.
  • Am not excusing bad work but it would help immensely if the IET left the nomenclature and coding system alone, not only on EICRs (what was wrong with the simple term 'PIR' for goodness sake?)

    Same with 'basic protection' and 'fault protection' - why could they not leave it as be? People just about get their heads around what is meant by the definitions - exposed and extraneous conductive parts, and they change it again. No wonder folk get confused as to what is actually intended. Leave the regulations alone for at least 10 years and let people get used to them, rather than constantly change and reword the basics. Less room - and excuses for errors then.
  • " Same with 'basic protection' and 'fault protection' "


    What, have they changed them again?


    or did you mean direct contact and indirect contact?


    I think the dropping of EEBADS or EEBADOS for ADS pushes the earthed equipotential bonding out of the window leaving us with a selection of various electronic methods which may or may not be totally effective.

    Legh
  • Indeed I did mean direct contact and indirect contact Legh! Just serves to highlight the scope for endless confusion!

    Just been reading through JP's template for conducting EICRs and he has done a commendable job.
  • Appendix 6 is an informative and 653.1 merely requires the report to be “based” on the model in Appendix 6.  It would actually make more sense if the requirement to provide a blunt overall designation of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory was dropped entirely. An otherwise perfectly sound installation with one code 2 is described as unsatisfactory. What does that convey to the recipient? Is it simply an unsatisfactory installation or is it a perfect installation with just one simple defect that conspires to render it unsatisfactory?
  • lyledunn:

    An otherwise perfectly sound installation with one code 2 is described as unsatisfactory. What does that convey to the recipient? Is it simply an unsatisfactory installation or is it a perfect installation with just one simple defect that conspires to render it unsatisfactory? 


    Would you classify a chain as satisfactory just because only one link is broken?


  • Chris Pearson:
    lyledunn:

    An otherwise perfectly sound installation with one code 2 is described as unsatisfactory. What does that convey to the recipient? Is it simply an unsatisfactory installation or is it a perfect installation with just one simple defect that conspires to render it unsatisfactory? 


    Would you classify a chain as satisfactory just because only one link is broken?




    There is always an analogy out there to suit every argument but the point I was making was for the inspector not to be forced in to a declaration of satisfactory or otherwise. Just list the defects and ascribe a code. Whoever is seeking the report can decide what remedial action is appropriate. Most recipients ignore code 3 issues as they do not automatically render the report unsatisfactory. Consequently, the very same code 3 issues re-appear on subsequent reports. Why spend money on an installation that a competent person tells you is satisfactory?

    In Ireland there is no overall designation given in periodic inspection reports. it concentrates the minds of commercial/industrial clients to assess if all that needs to be done to ensure safety is, in fact, being done, so far as is reasonably practicable, to comply with statutory duties. By the way, I wouldn't hold up the Irish PIR as an exemplar, quite the contrary, but I do like this aspect of it.

    I might colour my opinion for domestic installations but I rarely involve myself with them.