Failed EICR

It would be unusual if a major defect (C2, C1) can be fixed with a MWC job. The addition of RCD protection in the tails for example is not MWC territory.  You have just modified the entire protection system for the installation!

The point here is that Landlords and Estate Agents do not understand the recent legislation, and the quality of “Inspectors” is entirely inadequate. The legislation just requires a certificate, although we call it a report but the important part is a signature showing RESPONSIBILITY, that the installation is compliant with BS7671:2018.

If you read https://www.niceic.com/join-us/prs-guide-april-20.aspx you will see some very curious things, one of which is the requirement to use their coding guide at all times. That demand cannot be met by any Inspector, because BS7671 specifically hands him/her the responsibility of deciding the severity of a defect. The reason that the NIC put it there is obvious, they accept inspections by persons with inadequate training and experience and quite possibly very shakey qualifications as well, because the whole thing operates under their QS system. It is interesting that the QS must have “a level 3 qualification in inspection and test” but is silent on the Inspector. Would someone like to tell me how that is in any way satisfactory, or even honest? Even 653.5 is ultimately unsatisfactory, but at least the BS7671 model form does require a signature from the actual Inspector, as does the NIC “red” forms.

However the NIC form requires the QS to sign, but he only signs to say he has “reviewed” the report, not that it is correct. All these points to the Inspector having no specific qualifications and the QS has not been to the site and checked the findings.

Let's say I have found a defect in a report, and this has led to a fatality. Who does the Police charge? The Inspector who has no qualification to carry out the report? The QS who has reviewed the report and knows nothing except that a few numbers and boxes have been filled in? Does this not indicate that the system is completely useless?

You may ask why am I writing this? It is because I now have a pile of EICRs, all of which have gross defects in both content and outcome. A good one from last week is for a flat. It apparently has both PELV and SELV installations, Double Insulation as a protection method,  main bonding of plastic pipes, and a list of other strange reports. The Ze is unlikely to be correct, and neither is the supply type. I has no limitations but a big chunk of the installation is inaccessible.

It would be unusual if a major defect (C2, C1) can be fixed with a MWC job. The addition of RCD protection in the tails for example is not MWC territory.  You have just modified the entire protection system for the installation!

The point here is that Landlords and Estate Agents do not understand the recent legislation, and the quality of “Inspectors” is entirely inadequate. The legislation just requires a certificate, although we call it a report but the important part is a signature showing RESPONSIBILITY, that the installation is compliant with BS7671:2018.

If you read https://www.niceic.com/join-us/prs-guide-april-20.aspx you will see some very curious things, one of which is the requirement to use their coding guide at all times. That demand cannot be met by any Inspector, because BS7671 specifically hands him/her the responsibility of deciding the severity of a defect. The reason that the NIC put it there is obvious, they accept inspections by persons with inadequate training and experience and quite possibly very shakey qualifications as well, because the whole thing operates under their QS system. It is interesting that the QS must have “a level 3 qualification in inspection and test” but is silent on the Inspector. Would someone like to tell me how that is in any way satisfactory, or even honest? Even 653.5 is ultimately unsatisfactory, but at least the BS7671 model form does require a signature from the actual Inspector, as does the NIC “red” forms.

However the NIC form requires the QS to sign, but he only signs to say he has “reviewed” the report, not that it is correct. All these points to the Inspector having no specific qualifications and the QS has not been to the site and checked the findings.

Let's say I have found a defect in a report, and this has led to a fatality. Who does the Police charge? The Inspector who has no qualification to carry out the report? The QS who has reviewed the report and knows nothing except that a few numbers and boxes have been filled in? Does this not indicate that the system is completely useless?

You may ask why am I writing this? It is because I now have a pile of EICRs, all of which have gross defects in both content and outcome. A good one from last week is for a flat. It apparently has both PELV and SELV installations, Double Insulation as a protection method,  main bonding of plastic pipes, and a list of other strange reports. The Ze is unlikely to be correct, and neither is the supply type. I has no limitations but a big chunk of the installation is inaccessible.