Failed EICR

James,

I'm well aware of the need to keep past EIC's, EICR's and minor works, albeit in the real world others always want to send them to archive (where they're difficult to get back) in order to save space.    I've watched that YouTube video and agree with it, including the reference to sampling rates for inspection.  Indeed that's something I have advocated with my colleagues for many years.  I think it was the NICEIC book on inspection and testing which essentially suggested that the initial sampling rate needs to be agreed up front in order to agree a cost.  I've emphasised to colleagues for some years that if tendering for a maintenance contract which we do, then some typical sampling rates should be indicated in the specification such that contractors can tender fairly in competition.  It should also help get rid of some of the drive by inspection and testing contractors who may assume the least.  

Getting back to the item under discussion, the minor works certificate is, according to IET GN3  a one page certificate for when the complete set of forms for initial verification (inspection and testing) may not be appropriate.   The sample form gives space for circuit details but only realistically for one circuit.  In many commercial installations there's often multiple distribution boards and or many circuits on those DB's which have been given an observation in need of attention.  At the last testing of my largest building (having around 30 DB's) there were over 100 observations on the single EICR (having multiple circuit schedules and continuation sheets for the observations).  I can't recall how many were C1's and C2's but there were a few C1's and lots of C2's and using minor works certificates would have resulted in a large volume of paper.   That's one extreme but its quite common to have 20 or more observations for old installations.  Hence my input into this post on what is the appropriate form of documentation to demonstrate that an installation is safe. 

A different approach of paperwork may hence be needed depending upon the scale of the observations and installation size. 

As a slight aside, one of the common findings I have is that completion of the EICR's is  poorly made at even the ‘details of the installation’ level.  I find that reports often incorrectly state the site (sometimes the client) and especially the building name and that's important when there are multiple buildings on a site and there is a need to tie the EICR records with other records including evidence of repairs.   I personally go to some length to emphasise the correct information with contractors office staff who I deal with but it rarely gets to the actual electrician who completes the work. They similarly rarely get a copy of those electrical drawings that I have as copies of, and the last EICR despite me giving them to the office for the electrician's use. 

Paul     

James,

I'm well aware of the need to keep past EIC's, EICR's and minor works, albeit in the real world others always want to send them to archive (where they're difficult to get back) in order to save space.    I've watched that YouTube video and agree with it, including the reference to sampling rates for inspection.  Indeed that's something I have advocated with my colleagues for many years.  I think it was the NICEIC book on inspection and testing which essentially suggested that the initial sampling rate needs to be agreed up front in order to agree a cost.  I've emphasised to colleagues for some years that if tendering for a maintenance contract which we do, then some typical sampling rates should be indicated in the specification such that contractors can tender fairly in competition.  It should also help get rid of some of the drive by inspection and testing contractors who may assume the least.  

Getting back to the item under discussion, the minor works certificate is, according to IET GN3  a one page certificate for when the complete set of forms for initial verification (inspection and testing) may not be appropriate.   The sample form gives space for circuit details but only realistically for one circuit.  In many commercial installations there's often multiple distribution boards and or many circuits on those DB's which have been given an observation in need of attention.  At the last testing of my largest building (having around 30 DB's) there were over 100 observations on the single EICR (having multiple circuit schedules and continuation sheets for the observations).  I can't recall how many were C1's and C2's but there were a few C1's and lots of C2's and using minor works certificates would have resulted in a large volume of paper.   That's one extreme but its quite common to have 20 or more observations for old installations.  Hence my input into this post on what is the appropriate form of documentation to demonstrate that an installation is safe. 

A different approach of paperwork may hence be needed depending upon the scale of the observations and installation size. 

As a slight aside, one of the common findings I have is that completion of the EICR's is  poorly made at even the ‘details of the installation’ level.  I find that reports often incorrectly state the site (sometimes the client) and especially the building name and that's important when there are multiple buildings on a site and there is a need to tie the EICR records with other records including evidence of repairs.   I personally go to some length to emphasise the correct information with contractors office staff who I deal with but it rarely gets to the actual electrician who completes the work. They similarly rarely get a copy of those electrical drawings that I have as copies of, and the last EICR despite me giving them to the office for the electrician's use. 

Paul