Next Inspection Date - Wiring and the Regulations BS 7671 - IET EngX - IET EngX

Next Inspection Date

Interesting one:

One of our clients has a large number of domestic rental properties that were tested previously by others. It doesn't sound like he knew what he was doing and there are various basic errors strewn throughout most of the reports. Crucially though, he's put a 3 year next inspection recommendation (instead of the obvious 5 year for a rental property) on all the reports.  

I appreciate that this is only a recommendation based on what the inspector feels is relevant, though I'd be interested to know any thoughts on where that would that leave the client from a legal perspective if something did occur on one of their sites? My first thought was that as he's clearly wrong (probably trying to generate work for himself) then the client could ignore the expiry date on the reports. But thinking about it a bit more, where does this put them if an incident did occur within the next 2 years? Would they still be classed as expired reports, even though the dates are all demonstrably incorrect? 

Surely they shouldn't have to foot the bill for having their sites tested earlier than required, just because the previous testers exclusively put the wrong dates down?

Parents
  • The EICR in 7671 2018 A2 now demands that a reason is given for the choice of interval to next inspection (see Section F p519).

  • The EICR in 7671 2018 A2 now demands that a reason is given for the choice of interval to next inspection (see Section F p519).

    Not criticising - just to clarify that this requirement is not new for 2022.

    Regulation 653.4 (which is unchanged from BS 7671:2018), is the Regulation that requires the explanation - Appendix 6 just being guidance (informative).

    So, it's been with us for the past 4 years now.

  • As GK has correctly pointed out the inspector needs to provide an explanation for her/his recommendation. 

    I also hear from time to time that an inspector has shortened the time to 3 or 6 months, or something similar, to make the client have any remedial work done. 

    Clearly the inspector has not read the declaration they have signed in respect of the part that says, "Subject to the necessary remedial action being taken".  If the client does not have the remedial work done they have no set period to the next inspection.

  • That's interesting.

    Some clients need more persuasion to get on with upgrades. Having a total disregard for their staff and visitors  makes inspectors perhaps a bit more proactive in encouraging the client to improve things.

  • I cannot remember what it was for exactly, but one of my tutors advocated C2 for something, especially in commercial premises when a C3 had been ignored (for 5 years). I think that this is entirely the wrong approach. The inspector's duty is to inspect, test, and report. There it stops - others are responsible for enforcement.

  • Clearly the inspector has not read the declaration they have signed in respect of the part that says, "Subject to the necessary remedial action being taken".  If the client does not have the remedial work done they have no set period to the next inspection.

    I agree, John, but I wonder whether you agree with my previous point that if no remedial work is required, the inspector is not responsible for setting the interval to the next test.

  • Good morning Chris

    No I do not agree with you. Regulation 653.5 contains the magic word "shall" so it is not optional for the inspector not to recommend an interval to the next inspection.

    Regulation 652.1 also contains the magic word "shall" and provides instruction on what the inspector must consider in order to determine the interval to the next inspection. 

    IET Guidance Note 3 provides guidance on intervals to the next inspection for different types of premises and installations that an inspector should use to guide their decision.

    The designer of the installation in Regulation 134.2.2 is required (there is that magic word again) to recommend the interval to the first periodic inspection and test.

  • John, thank you. That is very clear and I would now say that the customer in the OP has no option but to accept the 3 year interval.

  • The customer could ask the inspector to justify his/her decision on the interval as required by Regulation 653.4, if this has not been shown on the EICR.

    I am a great believer in the person doing the I&T should have no financial interest in the outcome of the process. For example the inspector being an  independent inspecting engineer who does not carry out installation work and not linked to an instillation company.

Reply
  • The customer could ask the inspector to justify his/her decision on the interval as required by Regulation 653.4, if this has not been shown on the EICR.

    I am a great believer in the person doing the I&T should have no financial interest in the outcome of the process. For example the inspector being an  independent inspecting engineer who does not carry out installation work and not linked to an instillation company.

Children
  • I am a great believer in the person doing the I&T should have no financial interest in the outcome of the process. For example the inspector being an  independent inspecting engineer who does not carry out installation work and not linked to an instillation company.

    In an ideal world!

    What about things which are easy to fix? Would you offer to replace a damaged wiring accessory, for example?

    One of the problems with "remedial action" is whether it is certified or not. A reputable contractor would of course issue an EIC or a MEIWC as appropriate, but the inspector is not required to re-inspect.

    Why is it that MOTs have now come to mind? Thinking