Failed EICR

I don't think that's correct Zoom. If the garage undertakes the repair without the vehicle leaving the premises then they will issue the MOT as you said. However, if the owner takes the vehicle away to repair it then I believe they're back to square one. ISTBC!

Some MOT defects can be retested within 1 working day free of charge.

If repairs are done elsewhere within 10 days, it's a partial retest at half the normal fee.

After 10 days, it's a complete retest.

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.

Grumpy: 
 

I don't think that's correct Zoom. If the garage undertakes the repair without the vehicle leaving the premises then they will issue the MOT as you said. However, if the owner takes the vehicle away to repair it then I believe they're back to square one. ISTBC!

Mine doesn't charge for a retest within a short period.

Z.

Question 1.

A potential customer asks for a quote to replace a consumer unit after you did an EICR for them, do you just copy the test results off the original EICR?

Question 2.

The same, but someone else did the EICR, do you copy their test results onto your EIC for the new consumer uni?

Chris Pearson: 
 

This is what the law says:

R. 3

(5) Where paragraph (4) applies, a private landlord must—

    (a) obtain written confirmation from a qualified person that the further investigative or remedial work has been carried out and that—

        (i) the electrical safety standards are met

An MEIWC or EIC satisfies (a) above. The combination of the EICR and MEIWC/EIC satisfies (i). One could put in Part 1, paragraph 5 words to the effect, “The defects reported in the EICR dated xx/yy/zzzz have been remedied and the installation is now in a satisfactory condition.”

As ever, it's a matter of contract.

Others want to see a simple PASS certificate, not multiple bits of paper stapled together that act like an Agatha Christie story.

Z.

A very interesting question and one I have pondered over myself.  I'm not an electrician but rather a facilities manager responsible for commercial buildings, and a handful of domestic properties, though I do have several qualifications including in electrical engineering.  The subject is one that I have never had a clear response to despite working with several electrical contractors who were members of different professional bodies.   

While I note the references to domestic properties above this very much also applies to commercial properties.  I personally can see a place for a minor works being issued post remedial works if the matter does not materially affect the results given in the included circuit schedules.  On the other hand, if those are affected, say by investigation of and remedial works that impact a numerical value or say the fitting of an RCBO then a revised EICR would be my suggestion.  Could such not be caveated at the front to say that this particular EICR covers only circuits XYZ, or just issue it for those particular circuits ?   Just a thought and happy to hear other views so this will be one I will be watching.

I have myself been on the receiving end of many poorly completed EICR's from electrical contractors and have subsequently returned many for correction and improvement.  

Just to add, what is ultimately required by a typical client is a statement that an installation is safe.  Where safety issues have been identified in an EICR then there is a need for a clear paper trail that can categorically confirm that those specific defects affecting safety in the EICR have been addressed. 

Paul

Paul4A: 
 

A very interesting question and one I have pondered over myself.  I'm not an electrician but rather a facilities manager responsible for commercial buildings, and a handful of domestic properties, though I do have several qualifications including in electrical engineering.  The subject is one that I have never had a clear response to despite working with several electrical contractors who were members of different professional bodies.   

While I note the references to domestic properties above this very much also applies to commercial properties.  I personally can see a place for a minor works being issued post remedial works if the matter does not materially affect the results given in the included circuit schedules.  On the other hand, if those are affected, say by investigation of and remedial works that impact a numerical value or say the fitting of an RCBO then a revised EICR would be my suggestion.  Could such not be caveated at the front to say that this particular EICR covers only circuits XYZ, or just issue it for those particular circuits ?   Just a thought and happy to hear other views so this will be one I will be watching.

I have myself been on the receiving end of many poorly completed EICR's from electrical contractors and have subsequently returned many for correction and improvement.  

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

The MWC we use have a schedule of circuit details and test results, so if you only changed the protective device to an rcbo then this could be used imo. 

The only time you cannot use a MWC is if you have installed a new circuit or fuse board as a general rule of thumb, at least that's how I understand it. 

Regards TS

 

Sparkingchip: 
 

Question 1.

A potential customer asks for a quote to replace a consumer unit after you did an EICR for them, do you just copy the test results off the original EICR?

Question 2.

The same, but someone else did the EICR, do you copy their test results onto your EIC for the new consumer uni?

1. Depends, when doing a EICR their is no requirement to carryout all tests as per an EIC. Only what the inspector deems necessary. 

2. You can never assume anything when taking on someone else's work so in this instance would undertake full testing, just for my own peace of mind.