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 8762 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?
  • 0
    Been very informative reading the posts on this and I totally agree the EICR especially those carried out for Landlords leave a lot to be desired. I have posted on other threads about the whole "Competancy" situation today with regards electricians, electrically skilled, inspectors etc.

    A young electrician having just completed his apprenticeship/NVQ Level 3 and their AM2 according to the awarding bodies and scheme providers those persons should be able to complete satisfactory a EICR! But what experience do they have, how would that person thats only been exposed over their short career and educated to the current regs and standards correctly inspect an installation whose core installation is 20yrs old and had a number of additions and alterations?


    I remember attending and passing my 2391 back in 1998 and it was a tough but fair assessment and I actually learnt valuable detail on that course, we all know it had a high failure rate and it was laterly weakened down, to get a better pass rate and thats where it all started again it was heavily biased to domestic electricians who it was said didnt need the same level of technical ability after all its only a house!. I have never understood that, electricity in the wrong hands or in the wrong/poor installation still kills the same as in a high tech industry with its said far higher qualifed technicians.


    I absolutely hate those scheme operators that produce site guides, codebreaker lists etc, they actually cause the issues because people like a definitive list, so if its on the list then no thinking or assessing the particular item or installation they are looking at. They are happy to stand behind that publication and say thats what the book says.


    The situation is only going to get worse, of course in the domestic and rental, landlord sector its stack them high sell them cheap always has been and I never see it changing.


    Assessments  need to be fair and reasonable and I agree on simulated inspection boards/installations, if there are "X" faults then candidates should find them all and certainly critical faults that would be C1's. Having say 30 faults and candidates need to find say 66% of them to me isnt correct, also somebody mentioned for every comment that isnt actually a defect but perhaps bad workmanship should loose a mark! Im involved in inspection assessments on a slightly diffrent area of work and the candidates according to the scheme operator must never be told how many faults are actually on the assessment board, much to their disgust!  but thats a reality of life when one goes to carry out an inspection the client doesnt inform you that the install has "x" faults! reality is there could be none if correctly designed, installed and maintained by competent people, there could be 1 fault or 1001 faults, but issuing a report to say satisfactory or unsatisfactory without applying your electrical knowledge, experience and competance on that age and type of installation is a big issue that I fear will never be resolved and only get worse.


    Some things in life are a challenge and difficult and not everyone will succeed, the answer is certainly not make the assessments easier or provide a checklist of "Faults". What about the fatal flaw that will easily provide a fatal shock, but its not listed in these checklist books? does that mean it isnt a fault according to the inexperienced and incompetant inspector? or the competent person with a great working knowledge of the system they are inspecting and knowledge of all the appropriate standards and regs easily picks up on that fault with no checklist book other than the form fields on the reports and their understanding of what they mean.


    GTB 


     

  • 0
    "I remember attending and passing my 2391 back in 1998 and it was a tough but fair assessment and I actually learnt valuable detail on that course, we all know it had a high failure rate and it was laterly weakened down" 

    Agreed that`s the one I did in that year too but yes the Tutor told us the number of defects he had to have on the board to satisfy City & Guilds which OK is fair enough but like you I agree he should not have told us this number and no way encourage us to add non defects as defects without penalty . If there were indeed say 12 defects and say you spotted them all but also listed another 8 non defects I would award 12 - 8 = 4 total marks whereas he would award 12 marks. I thought that was a mockery
  • 0
    ebee:

    "I remember attending and passing my 2391 back in 1998 and it was a tough but fair assessment and I actually learnt valuable detail on that course, we all know it had a high failure rate and it was laterly weakened down" 

    Agreed that`s the one I did in that year too but yes the Tutor told us the number of defects he had to have on the board to satisfy City & Guilds which OK is fair enough but like you I agree he should not have told us this number and no way encourage us to add non defects as defects without penalty . If there were indeed say 12 defects and say you spotted them all but also listed another 8 non defects I would award 12 - 8 = 4 total marks whereas he would award 12 marks. I thought that was a mockery


    ebee,

    Thanks for your comments and we are obviously of the same "Vintage"! When Im carrying out training candidates will ask how many faults must I get to pass? simple answer all of them. And thats the problem especially on inspection and test work, people only wish to do enough to pass, get the cert and hey ho they and their employer suddenly think they know everything? after all they got a certificate!!


    Now the analogy that I give is, if a person cant play darts and you give them 1000 darts to throw at the board, they will not only miss the board with a few throws they will likley based on chance hit every bloody number including the bullseye!


    So candidates agree with that statement.


    Now just give somebody that cant play darts just a single dart and ask them to hit a particular number or the bullseye? then you hear the penny falling in their heads. I think that can happen with EICR's, they dont understand what they are looking at or how to correctly code it ( Even if it is a reportable defect) so they just throw everything on the report and hope they hit the "Bullseye".


    GTB


  • 0
    Chapter 65. Periodic Inspection & Testing. "in order to ascertain, so far as is reasonably practical, whether the installation is in a satisfactory condition for continued service."


    651.2 tells us what the installation shall provide regarding safety. Note 2 says that Existing installations may have been designed and installed to previous editions of BS 7671 applicable at the time of their design and erection. THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY ARE UNSAFE.


    This implies that any inspector and tester must have qualifications and experience of electrical installations to enable correct judgements.


    In domestic environments we have to consider the uses of, and possible abuses, of the electrical installation. "Satisfactory condition for continued use" comes to mind again.


    What's the regulation that mentions something along the lines of protection of careless users?


    Z.


  • 0
    I like Andy's idea, as a tiny start to making things a bit better. In fact, I have been discussing a video version with several people recently. However, that will be nothing like enough. Lyle above has hit the nail on the head, the Inspection job is vastly more complex than installation, particularly domestic, and is much more like a reverse engineering design job. Few of the Engineers I know like doing reverse engineering, it is full of pitfalls and snags which make it difficult and risky. The biggest problem is that many installations were unsatisfactory the day they were installed, and had latent faults and errors present. The regulations then change, often in fairly subtle ways, and new devices get added AFDDs Surge "protection", etc. and compliance becomes difficult or impossible to certify. Many think 3rd party testing is difficult and don't want to do it, well realistically an EICR of similar installations is much harder.


  • 0
    Well Z I know that this is your favourite line, but there isn't one. ?

    Careless or foolish users are not on the list, because otherwise it would get us in court pronto. If one looks at this idea, then anyone could blame someone else for whatever happened, even if they deliberately cut a cable and deliberately caught hold of the ends. The damages claims would be endless, the excuse being "it was not in steel conduit, inside trunking with concrete protection against by mega-powerful new hammer drill" for example. Fortunately the BS7671 writers etc. are not that foolish. Usually, neither are the public.
  • 0
    ebee:

    Back when I was doing the C&G 2360 with two evening classes each week there was an evening when only only two of us turned up, the head of department who was our tutor came into the workshop and found us looking at the Inspection and Testing exam board that the workshop technician had just finished.


    Hm! I thought that the exam boards were supposed to be secret.


    It was certainly acknowledged at the Resettlement Centre where I trained that 2394 was significantly more difficult than the domestic electrical installation course. IIRC, there were about a third of the number of places on 2395 as opposed to 2394, because you had to have passed the latter before taking the former and most candidates failed.


    Much the hardest part was testing against the clock under the watchful eyes of an assessor. In fact 2395 was a bit easier because the board was the same and it was possible to practice (in one's mind's eye) beforehand.


  • 0
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    Well Z I know that this is your favourite line, but there isn't one. ?

    Careless or foolish users are not on the list, because otherwise it would get us in court pronto. If one looks at this idea, then anyone could blame someone else for whatever happened, even if they deliberately cut a cable and deliberately caught hold of the ends. The damages claims would be endless, the excuse being "it was not in steel conduit, inside trunking with concrete protection against by mega-powerful new hammer drill" for example. Fortunately the BS7671 writers etc. are not that foolish. Usually, neither are the public.


    I have it now. The origin was the red Regulations book. B.S. 7671 2008 page 4. Noting the changes to Chapter 41 the paragraph said that additional protection by an R.C.D. was to be made for socket outlets. The additional protection was to be provided in the event of failure of the provision for basic protection and/or provision for fault protection or carelessness by users of the installation. 


    So that R.C.D. protection lives on in the current Regs. We protect users from their own carelessness.


    Z.


  • 0
    This one?
    415.1.1 The use of RCDs with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30 mA is recognized in AC systems as additional protection in the event of failure of the provision for basic protection and/or the provision for fault protection or carelessness by users.

    - Andy.
  • 0
    AJJewsbury:

    This one?
    415.1.1 The use of RCDs with a rated residual operating current not exceeding 30 mA is recognized in AC systems as additional protection in the event of failure of the provision for basic protection and/or the provision for fault protection or carelessness by users.

    - Andy.


    Yes, that's it Andy. I could not find it.


    Z.


Community Rules & Guidelines