Would you want one of the Geoff’s to do an EICR for you?

That’s confused the forum software, it cannot find a similar discussion to suggest an answer. Run with this, it is Saturday night 

So, do you feel that Geoff Wilson or Geoff Thompson would provide you with an accurate and easy to understand Electrical Installation Condition Report?

I had better add a disclaimer, these two are not living, breathing people and must not be confused with any real people who are electricians or electrical engineers.

  • Actually it’s Saturday night and the Eurovision Song Contest on telly.

  • Pull out your new brown IET On-Site Guide BS7671:3018+A2:2022 and turn to page 199, there you will find an example of how to complete an EICR signed by the fictitious character Geoff Stokes.

    I am truly tempted to enter all the information into a draft EICR using the NAPIT Desktop Electrical Certificate software, then print the draft, photograph it and post it here for comparison.

    The biggest bone of contention for me is the lack of 30 mA RCD to provide Additional Protection for the electric shower and how it is reported, “Geoff Stokes” has not even recorded an observation for this, but has for the lights not having RCD protection.

    I know where my priorities would lie, it would be with providing RCD protection for the shower, not the lights, but the issue with the shower lacking RCD protection is not even being drawn to the customer’s attention with an observation.

    There are other things, including interestingly Geoff got perfect insulation test results throughout the installation, even on the shower and lighting circuits cables which have been damaged and are arcing in the loft as a result of damage due to a rodent infestation, resulting in the customer calling Geoff out and agreeing to having an EICR prepared, because the customer could smell burning.

    It beggars belief that there’s perfect insulation test results on these two circuits.

    Any thoughts?

  • OSG EICR 

    Observation 3- No additional protection by RCD for socket-outlets C3

    Inspection Schedule- 5.12 Provision of additional protection by RCD not exceeding 30 mA.

    • for all socket outlets of rating 32A or less, unless an exception is permitted. Ticked acceptable condition.
    • for supply to mobile equipment not exceeding 32 A for outdoor use. Ticked acceptable condition.
    • for cables concealed in walls at a depth of less than 50 mm . C3 Improvement recommended.

    There is no rhyme or reason to it, the schedule doesn’t tally with the observations, the observations comment on the sockets, but not the cables in walls, the schedule codes the cables in walls but not the sockets.

  • The insulation tests show live to live testing at 500V , so he managed to disconnect all loads despite not venturing behind kitchen appliances. Shouldn't he just have connected both lives and tested to earth at 250V?

    Also the CU is both in the garage and in the kitchen cabinet.

    I can't find my blue OSG but if he did the same EICR in the same property, as has happened in previous OSGs, then the previous report would surely have been available from his records.

    Re-test in 10 years despite rampant rodents?

    I believe the insulation test result from the damaged loft cables has been ignawed.

  • and a Bedford phone  01234  ans a Carlisle  postcode CA99 - its a scam outfit ... beter ask for the VAT number... ;-)

    Mike.

  • I have my Blue OSG to hand, “Clive Jenkin” did the EICR different customer, different location, but a remarkably similar installation with the same rodent problem and the same observations, however there some notable differences in the coding on the Schedule of Inspections, some look more accurate in the Blue OSG, however there seems to be an issue with 4.18 where a lack of a RCD for fault protection in a TN-C-S earthed installations is coded C3, which has been altered in the Brown OSG to being acceptable.

    Clive Jenkin in the Blue OSG seems to have the edge on Geoff Stokes in the Brown OSG, but doesn’t quite crack it.

  • “Ignawed” is a new word in my vocabulary, it looks very apt when referring to rodent damage in the loft that may be being ignored, ignoring the gnawing, ignawed that’s worth adding to Spellchequers dictionary.