Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

Options
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EICR visual inspection?

Dave Thomas
This came up in another forum question and when I looked, the NICEIC sell "visual inspection forms", but I'm struggling to see when or how these would be suitable or deemed sufficient as they apparently involve no testing whatsoever. the info I found was sketchy ( I didn't buy any!) but it looked as though you don't even take the cover off the board or do a Ze/polarity test?

I accept that in a well finished house with a high standard of decor (especially if they have just done it up and it's on the market) the customer might not want you taking loads of stuff apart and I it may be appropriate to list "limitations" on the report and get on with what you can, but: 

If you surely cannot state an installation is safe for use because the CU is modern, all the tails and earths look the right size and there's an RCD? Yes, knowing that there are no obvious risks of direct contact electric shock is a start, but surely you would at least need to do Ze and Zs for each circuit as well as bonding conductor continuity and RCD/RCBO trip times? Anyone know more about these, or does anyone do them?
Register to replyAlready registered? Log in and reply
Parents
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:

    To my mind visuals are in addition to normal periodic inspections - not instead of. We all know that an MOT or EICR is only as good as the day it's written - anything could have happened afterwards (accidental damage, bodged alteration, struck by lightning...) that could result in a damaged installation long before the next periodic is due. Ideally we rely on people's common sense - knowing that impact they know about might have resulted in damage and keep an eye out for wear and tear that can happen any time. But common sense seems to be lacking these days, so a Visual is a way of formalising what ideally should be happening all the time anyway, but probably doesn't.

       - Andy.


    I issued an E.I.C.R. recently to a landlord. The installation had two mains battery smoke alarms. As I usually do, I pushed the test buttons to check operation. The units were life expired. The batteries were U/S. The "replace by" date stickers on the units confirmed that renewal was needed.

    I remarked to the tenant that she may consider fitting two new battery operated smoke alarms for immediate cover, whilst the elderly landlord gets the originals replaced. The alarms did not work on batteries at all, just when mains powered.


    She said that they worked when she burnt the toast. She said that replacement  was the landlord's responsibility.


    A "walk by" visual inspection  would not have discovered the faulty smoke alarms.


    Z.

     


Reply
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:

    To my mind visuals are in addition to normal periodic inspections - not instead of. We all know that an MOT or EICR is only as good as the day it's written - anything could have happened afterwards (accidental damage, bodged alteration, struck by lightning...) that could result in a damaged installation long before the next periodic is due. Ideally we rely on people's common sense - knowing that impact they know about might have resulted in damage and keep an eye out for wear and tear that can happen any time. But common sense seems to be lacking these days, so a Visual is a way of formalising what ideally should be happening all the time anyway, but probably doesn't.

       - Andy.


    I issued an E.I.C.R. recently to a landlord. The installation had two mains battery smoke alarms. As I usually do, I pushed the test buttons to check operation. The units were life expired. The batteries were U/S. The "replace by" date stickers on the units confirmed that renewal was needed.

    I remarked to the tenant that she may consider fitting two new battery operated smoke alarms for immediate cover, whilst the elderly landlord gets the originals replaced. The alarms did not work on batteries at all, just when mains powered.


    She said that they worked when she burnt the toast. She said that replacement  was the landlord's responsibility.


    A "walk by" visual inspection  would not have discovered the faulty smoke alarms.


    Z.

     


Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines