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

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 122 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 9684 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

The EICR and competence. What are we going to do about the endless problems brought to the forum?

David Stone
Your answers Gentlemen, please. This is indicating a serious problem in the Industry. Trust is now zero. I am disgusted with the behavior of these alleged "inspectors" who are dim, dumb, deaf and blind, and cannot read the BBB. It is not good enough is it?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    "inspectors" who are dim, dumb, deaf and blind, and cannot read the BBB”  The answer is in this phrase.  Training centres are too willing to accept people without the relevant skills base in maths/english to successfully navigate the courses and emerge at the end of their studies with a meaningful, synthesised understanding of their subject.  In this country we still have a fundamental problem that trades, such as those of the electrician, are for those not quite academically capable enough of doing something more useful with their lives.    Most schools now have a sixth form attached and will try to keep the academically able students in their establishments. Those not deemed bright enough are directed to the local establishments offering vocational courses. Bright students are pushed/opt into engineering courses, do a Btec and then go of to university. Most people think of an electrician as somebody who does just manually (skilled)  work.  I agree with davezawadi’s sentiments but to solve it you will need a register, similar to Gas Safe, and inspectors would need to have minimum qualifications of something like the old 2391 and an advanced Design qualification.  Given the experience of Part P bodies or the likes of Gas Safe who encourage their members to guard the secrets of the dark arts of gas works from the general public is that the way you would want to go?

  • 0
    I listened to a BBC “Wake up to money” podcast on the way to work the other morning and Peter Rolton was being interviewed about building a Giga Factory to build EV batteries here in the UK. 


    One of the challenges is to teach teach future employees basic literacy.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-56207633
  • 0
    Interesting post from Gaston, but what about the days of grammar schools and secondary moderns? Grammar school boys (and some girls) went up to university; secondary moderns got an apprenticeship and went out to work.


    In those days, about 15% of school-leavers went to university, now it is 50%. So I wonder whether the 35% of above average pupils who endured an apprenticeship and took up a trade were rather brighter than those who seek a trade nowadays.
  • 0
    I've viewed two unsatisfactory 'unsatisfactory' EICR's with rip off shopping lists of remedials this week by NICEIC contractors. One has been refunded and the other we're in pursuit.

    The rush is on now for the 1st April deadline for landlords being pestered by their LA and then the 28 day remedial deadline.

    davezawadi (David Stone)‍ would it not be an idea for a 'sample' of the reports landing at the LA to be audited? Preferably by the scheme providers or some competent independent. I'm sure you've got a rouges gallery of rubbish reports but the LA will have maybe 100's of them.

    Sampling, maybe up to 100% if enough faulty reports found.


    Copies of reports and remedials sent to LA and tenants must be a filing nightmare , why not have an online gov.uk portal to send all the info to like the EV OLEV scheme does.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    So, Mr Pekham's suggestion of a minimum requirement of what should be tested is good but does this not become a box filling exercise and the opportunity to claim "I did not inspect that guv because it was not on the list? And anyway, does not BS 7671/GN 3 give us already a good list of what we might want to be inspecting. Also, Mr Steward's suggestion of (presumably costly) auditing is good too.  But who will do the auditing?  What if, for the sake of argument, Mr Benton, the auditor, disagrees with Mr Badadi's inspection. Who becomes the arbiter?  Going down a prescriptive route does, in my opinion, deskills the inspector by presupposing that reports are incompetently carried out by the uninstructed.  Whilst that may be the case sometimes it is, in my opinion, the wrong solution.  We need a better educated, more skilled workforce with the required levels of competency to carry out the inspections.
  • 0
    Gaston:

    So, Mr Pekham's suggestion of a minimum requirement of what should be tested is good but does this not become a box filling exercise and the opportunity to claim "I did not inspect that guv because it was not on the list? And anyway, does not BS 7671/GN 3 give us already a good list of what we might want to be inspecting. Also, Mr Steward's suggestion of (presumably costly) auditing is good too.  But who will do the auditing?  What if, for the sake of argument, Mr Benton, the auditor, disagrees with Mr Badadi's inspection. Who becomes the arbiter?  Going down a prescriptive route does, in my opinion, deskills the inspector by presupposing that reports are incompetently carried out by the uninstructed.  Whilst that may be the case sometimes it is, in my opinion, the wrong solution.  We need a better educated, more skilled workforce with the required levels of competency to carry out the inspections.


    That will never solve the problem.  If the test is not prescriptive, then it will always come down to the opinion of the person doing the tests.  You can force the testers to do as much training as you like, but that won't change the issue that some people will label something as a C3 and others will label it a C2.


    MOT testers have a big book of instructions telling them what is a pass and what is a fail.  Even then, no two testers will grade a car the same.


    To the landlord customer, a C3 is a "pass" and the property may be rented out, while a C2 is a "fail" and it must be fixed or the landlord will be fined.


  • 0
    Jon Steward:

    The rush is on now for the 1st April deadline for landlords being pestered by their LA and then the 28 day remedial deadline.

    Yes, but the LA has to ask for a copy of the report:


    R.3 para (3): (c)supply a copy of that report to the local housing authority within 7 days of receiving a request in writing for it from that authority


    I don't suppose that any LA will be wanting to collect mountains of EICRs.


    What seems much more likely is that a tenant who had concerns about the report, or the state of the wiring, would seek the assistance of the LA.


    Looking at my LA's web site just now revealed nothing on electrical safety, but there is a section on badgers. ?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Simon Barker, we are in agreement: prescriptive, or not, the inspection will always be a judgement call based on the experience, and understanding of the inspector.  That two, experienced, inspectors should disagree is not a problem either way something could be given a C2 erring more on a side of caution whereas it could be given a C3 if the inspector thinks it could do with improving but in all reality is not going to be a real problem; some people prefer a belt and braces approach etc.  From your analogy the same MOT inspector might, on the same day, see three instances of the same problems on three different cars and pass one, fail the second and give an advisory on the third.  S/he will be making other (valid) 'value' judgements.
  • 0
    Simon Barker:

    MOT testers have a big book of instructions telling them what is a pass and what is a fail.  Even then, no two testers will grade a car the same.


    Depends what it is and the same must go for an EICR.


    Some things are black and white - e.g. headlamp blown, absence of additional protection.


    Some things have shades of grey - e.g. worn brake pads, Zs a little high.


    MOT testers have their inspection manual, we have BS 7671 and GN3.


    What should not happen in either case is that parts of the inspection are left out. I have had more than one MOT where the brakes were not tested.


  • 0
    Interesting points from Gaston. The fundamental problem in my view is that education has changed over the last 40 years or so to be all about money. Qualifications are now sold by so-called providers, and to make this work everyone must pass, probably at the highest level. When I was at University (quite a few years ago it must be admitted) getting a first in Engineering required a level of brains, effort, and dedication which very few managed (3 out of about 100 if I remember). Now both the local Universities in Bristol seem to find enough "clever" students from somewhere to make this 25%. Along with the fact that something like 50% go to university, rather than 5%, a miraculous gain in brain power has come from somewhere. Course content is now a fraction of that which it was, and 40hrs a week of contact time (which I had) has now become a few hours between social functions. I knew what I had to do, and I expected to get marks in proportion to my ability and effort. This is no longer the case, Universities are now so all about the money that even seeing a member of the academic staff is restricted because they are so occupied with "research", mostly finding people to give them money!


    Even C&G has done something similar, open-book, multiple-choice, distance learning, etc. has reduced real qualifications to something close to rewarding for application and payment. To me this is horrific, and I think the IET is probably suffering the same too, it is ever so keen to sell "training" courses. The Electrical free webinars are a push back against this, but they do not have tests at the end!


    Back to the OP, somehow we have to make the EICR more objective. Suggesting that "someone" audits the reports is not going to fly, it is far too difficult and expensive. John Peckhams EICR guide is very good, but needs the addition of separation between inspector and repairs to work. This is essentially the key and applies to industry generally, the inspector or quality control person must be independent of the production management, so that quality is maintained. Usually, these two areas report to the highest level of business management completely independently, we need to separate the two functions.

Community Rules & Guidelines