Failed EICR

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?

Q1: Yes, assuming that the installation was satisfactory otherwise, I think that is reasonable for the circuits so long as they have not been altered. The DB tests, including RCDs, would be done afresh.

ETA: If you do this, you should say so on the EIC.

Q2: No, I think that you have to make your own verification.

Q3: Somebody from the same company did the EICR. What then?

Well how well do you trust the previous guy to have done a proper job. Reading some of the tales on here, not always very far.

You could be explicit who is responsible for what .

“Based on results of earlier test and inspection  performed by your contractors,  Speedy, Bodge and Scarper Ltd,  in conjunction with the additional minor works I have undertaken to correct the specific defects as described below,   the installation may now be considered  fit for use until the retest date … "

If the remedial was to fix  couple of C1 defects by replacing a smashed ceiling rose or junction box with one with a lid for example, you may like to adopt the cover of tests already done on the rest of the installation.

 If you trust them….

Apologies if your business really is called Speedy Bodge and Scarper.. no reference to a real outfit is intended.

Mike

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?

 

Many of the tests could potentially be undermined by faults introduced when replacing the CU - damage to the core insulation (either new or existing but repositioned) could be missed if copying previous results, likewise Zs tests if a work hardened c.p.c. breaks or isn't terminated correctly.

R1+R2 tests that are often done before cables are terminated possibly should be the same (but I prefer to do those with the c.p.c.s terminated in the earth bar to ensure that connection is tested as well and accept some additional parallel paths).

So my 2ds worth is that the tests should be repeated and the new results recorded.

The non-wiring tests - e.g. RCD/AFDD tests would need to be fresh anyway, as they'd be different devices in the new CU.

    - Andy.

I normally do the fiddling about and disconnecting first at the consumer unit, which includes checking the tightness of terminal connections. I then visually check the consumer unit. After that I check earthing of installation  exposed conductive parts, correct socket earthing and polarity etc. That way I can pick up on any missed deficiencies at the consumer unit.

Z.

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     

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?

 

I don't think either is appropriate and copying past results which represent the findings on the day they were carried out should never be done.  That's why I wondered for other works whether an EIC or EICR might be okay with the limitations clearly stating the circuit that was changed.  In the case of changing a consumer unit which you reference is there not a case for retesting all of the circuits anyway ?  You will have disconnected all final circuits and reconnected them to the new consumer unit so values might have changed.  The need for re-testing them for safety is something that should be emphasised to the client when quoting.

Paul 

I have noticed something horribly interesting after my post above, and that is that there have been NO comments on what I said. I really would like some feedback, because I would like to understand WHY it has been ignored. Does anyone even understand the post? Do you understand the QS system? Perhaps you all think it is fine and works really well? It relates to the OP in a clear way, Fred does an EICR, Bert comes from the same company to fix some defects, who knows what he actually did and the QS signs an MWC. Is this now satisfactory, or is it a big no one knows, or does the QS issue a new satisfactory EICR? I have a few examples of each! Some must be wrong, or perhaps not…..

David, If the QS system is operating as you say, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, then it is clearly not satisfactory. The inspector has to make the decision and it is they that need to be suitably qualified and experienced to make decisions on coding and safety. In my opinion a QS review  should be checking for the obvious errors, that I am sure we have all made at some point such as ticking the wrong box by mistake, and ensuring consistency so that all EICR from the company have a similar standard. I would also expect them to occasionally go out and see the inspector doing a EICR.

But as we all have seen there is a considerable variation  in the quality of both the old PIRs and the current EICRs with the new Landlord requirements adding to the problem.

As I work for myself there is only me if the police come knocking so I try to ensure that they don't. Not by being over cautious but by ensuring that my judgements are reasonable and supported by inspection, photographs and testing with comments in the report where appropriate.  But doing it properly does not come cheap and I cannot compete with the £150 or less tests. I do sometimes wish I had someone casting an eye over my reports to make sure I have not managed to make a silly error such as ticking the TNS box instead of the TNCS box by mistake when I know and have tested it as TNCS. 

I am glad I am retired.

Anyone in the contracting sector knows that is how the “schemes” actually work because that is how they make their money. It is very difficult for a “conscientious” contractor to bid against one for a project when the labour costs are so different.

What exactly is the difference between a “Domestic Installer” and an “Approved Contractor” except the amount of money handed over? Is the 2382 pass mark different for the QS? Are the QS responsibilities different? In reality, the Domestic Installer pays less money, and usually, it is better for him/her if they just carry out domestic work. What does BS 7671 say about the competence of each, I cannot find anything?

Now to Inspection. I don't think that anyone has yet said much about the data kindly provided by a number of members of the forum. We can discuss the semantics of coding forever, but that is not the point. Assume that I am the QS of a large contractor. I have a number of staff available, some well-experienced persons, some first-year apprentices. I need all of these to be bringing in revenue, and this requires me to send someone to carry out a wide range of jobs. I have only one fully qualified and experienced inspector. Does it really matter to me who I send to carry out the list of EICRs requested? Do I mind if the results are over-coded, or the forms are wrongly filled in or the customer is charged for unnecessary reparations? Realistically these are either gains for me, or don't matter in the larger scheme of things. Is anyone likely to find the problems, or are they likely to result in damage to my company? Probably not. Does my certifying body care? I have no evidence that it does because there is NO delisting of scheme members. For the scheme, the publicity of delisting should be important, because it shows that standards are being set. However, it loses revenue so is undesirable, and it is easy to ignore complaints from the public who have no idea how to complain effectively. The QS job is done, with no standards, no compliance, no fairness, and loads of cash.

I have a suspicion that the yearly assessment visits are fairly unimportant too. I have a copy of BS 7671 on the shelf. I have my 2382 certificate and my 2391 certificate for inspection. I have one or two “good” EICRs that I can have inspected. If I am asked a few tricky questions I can look in BS 7671 using the index to find the answer, because everything is now open book and I can read. I this really sufficient, or is it a “box-ticking” job? I have never had such a visit, but I have a lot of information from those who have, but I will bet none of you would like one from me, not because I am out to catch you but because I can see through the system to your actual work quality! Standards matter.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
If I am asked a few tricky questions I can look in BS 7671 using the index to find the answer, because everything is now open book and I can read.

I was given a page of pretty easy MCQ questions this year. It didn't even occur to me to open the BBB. I was a little surprised, but apparently some candidates struggle even with the book. I am sure that they can read, but do they know how to use it?