Videos of EICRs on Youtube

I will attempt to answer your points Andy.

• a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1)  the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) 

That is the basic question that I am trying to answer Andy, but at this point, I am not prepared to say exactly why, but you may be able to work that out for yourself. The minimum requirement must be the 18th edition exam and C&G 2391, (or possibly earlier manifestation 2394 and 2395). Earlier versions of 2391 were much harder, not open book and written. The pass rate was very small, from experience around 10-15%.

• a person competent to undertake any further investigative work

This one is particularly interesting because the man in video 1 says in another video that he particularly dislikes “fault-finding”. I wonder why, this is probably the most interesting job that electricians have, but it does require a much better understanding of circuits and measurements than installation. 

• a person competent to undertake any remedial work

Most electricians do not seem to enjoy repairs, and there may be a number of reasons for this. It is necessary to understand the second point above, and one rarely gets the satisfaction of a complete installation. It also could be that points 2 and 3 are generally not as remunerative as a new installation, and take less time so more jobs are necessary to keep busy.

As far as previous editions of BS7671 go, it is not reasonable to say that older installations become “unsafe” because of the changes to regulations. This cannot be sustained because the accident statistics do not support this view, and the update of every installation every few years is obviously ridiculous. If we were to adopt such a requirement, alterations to BS7671 would have to virtually stop, and it is worth remembering that most changes do not come from the UK, they are from CENELEC and the IEC, etc. and it is international agreement (which may be rubber-stamping) that makes many of the changes, and some are simply editorial.

Whilst the Inspector must have reasonable latitude in his comments, many feel that this has gone too far, particularly customers and presently landlords. Because the EICR is now enshrined in law, there must be a good degree of similarity between inspectors, just as there is for car MOTs. MOT inspectors are fairly rigorously inspected and controlled, with sanctions if they “cheat” the system both for failure to note defects or being too strict. Should we have such a system for EICR inspectors? 

I will attempt to answer your points Andy.

• a person competent to undertake the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1)  the inspection and testing required under regulation 3(1) 

That is the basic question that I am trying to answer Andy, but at this point, I am not prepared to say exactly why, but you may be able to work that out for yourself. The minimum requirement must be the 18th edition exam and C&G 2391, (or possibly earlier manifestation 2394 and 2395). Earlier versions of 2391 were much harder, not open book and written. The pass rate was very small, from experience around 10-15%.

• a person competent to undertake any further investigative work

This one is particularly interesting because the man in video 1 says in another video that he particularly dislikes “fault-finding”. I wonder why, this is probably the most interesting job that electricians have, but it does require a much better understanding of circuits and measurements than installation. 

• a person competent to undertake any remedial work

Most electricians do not seem to enjoy repairs, and there may be a number of reasons for this. It is necessary to understand the second point above, and one rarely gets the satisfaction of a complete installation. It also could be that points 2 and 3 are generally not as remunerative as a new installation, and take less time so more jobs are necessary to keep busy.

As far as previous editions of BS7671 go, it is not reasonable to say that older installations become “unsafe” because of the changes to regulations. This cannot be sustained because the accident statistics do not support this view, and the update of every installation every few years is obviously ridiculous. If we were to adopt such a requirement, alterations to BS7671 would have to virtually stop, and it is worth remembering that most changes do not come from the UK, they are from CENELEC and the IEC, etc. and it is international agreement (which may be rubber-stamping) that makes many of the changes, and some are simply editorial.

Whilst the Inspector must have reasonable latitude in his comments, many feel that this has gone too far, particularly customers and presently landlords. Because the EICR is now enshrined in law, there must be a good degree of similarity between inspectors, just as there is for car MOTs. MOT inspectors are fairly rigorously inspected and controlled, with sanctions if they “cheat” the system both for failure to note defects or being too strict. Should we have such a system for EICR inspectors?