Hmm, it seems the vast majority of Inspections I do have a number of unidentified circuits.  It'd be daft to say it is unverified. What does that even mean? 

It is what you are there to do - identify the circuits, and make sure they are safe for continued use. Tracing those circuits would be part of the Contract, if the Contract says full I&T, then thats what you do, if it says I&T of known circuits, then you do that, the Limitations should be agreed beforehand, and other Operational Limitations shoudl be written down, if a circuit cannot be traced, then it should be marked as FI, and an unsatisfactory report given. Or, totally disconnect it, and wait to see if anything doesnt work over the next few weeks(of course, this would have to be agreed with the Client). 

Sam Ayre said:

when carrying out an EICR if you come across an unidentified circuit with no documentation then this would be classed as verification and therefor not part of the EICR process

But if the the circuit exists and is in use, then surely this is within the scope of an EICR according to the first sentence of Regulation 651.1 ?

But, if some circuits are unidentified or hard to get at, the inspector should write them down as a problem (LIM) in the EICR. The inspector should also give them a code of FI (further investigation required) to show that more work is needed to check their safety and condition.
The inspector should also tell the client or duty holder, who is the one who owns or is responsible for the electrical installation about the unidentified circuits and warn them of the possible risks and outcomes.

AMK said:

But, if some circuits are unidentified or hard to get at, the inspector should write them down as a problem (LIM) in the EICR.

That depends on what was agreed with the person requesting the inspection (matter of contract).

AMK said:

The inspector should also give them a code of FI (further investigation required) to show that more work is needed to check their safety and condition.

I  know this is an often-discussed point ... and there are differing views here ... BUT ... What requires that? First, FI is not identified as something that has to be reported according to Regulation 653.2. Second, in Appendix 6 (informative), FI is identified as "Further investigation required without delay". This is further clarified in item 9 of the Notes on the reverse of the EICR form:

'Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item,'

We surely couldn't call a something that's a 'LIM' an FI with those criteria? The two things are very different circumstances.

The list of 'LIM's and the scope of your EICR say what you have certified is covered ... nothing more, nothing less ... and your statement about satisfactory is subject to the LIMs and scope (and you'd be correct if you thought you'd be advised to document that ... and lo and behold, it's in Section K of the EICR form in Appendix 6, but you could always make the same caveat in Section E, e.g. "Subject to the extent and limitations of Section D "... if you think it's not taken as read).

AMK said:

The inspector should also tell the client or duty holder, who is the one who owns or is responsible for the electrical installation about the unidentified circuits and warn them of the possible risks and outcomes.

Or you could cover off that by saying you recommend the safety of circuits within the Extent and Limitations are addressed at some point ?

Overall, I think you have to strike a balance between covering yourself, and stating that an installation is unsafe because you haven't checked everything (but nor, perhaps, could you have been expected to do so, likewise an MOT tester can't 100 % your car).

Just an example to help with the balance of this ... you can get at all of a circuit, but you don't perhaps inspect every accessory it - is that FI (you could miss a poor or corroded connection, or accessory that's about to go up in smoke, but you could only tell that from the rear)?

You have an impressive knowledge of the subject.
I admire your expertise on the topic, and it’s a pleasure to have a conversation with you. I have acquired all your IET books and gained a lot of insight from them.
You are very well-informed about the subject, and I appreciate having a discussion with you.

AMK said:

You have an impressive knowledge of the subject.

Thank you ... I do take that as a compliment, but at the same time acknowledge that, in engineering:

• No-one knows all the right answers ...
• because there isn't always a right answer

gkenyon said:

But if the the circuit exists and is in use, then surely this is within the scope of an EICR according to the first sentence of Regulation 651.1 ?

What about the last sentence of 651.1?

It seems to me that a circuit is usually identified by labelling, but previous documentation may assist if it is absent or inadequate. So if neither exists, the electrical installation must be investigated (i.e. some effort must be made to identify the circuit) prior to even starting the PI&T which leads to the EICR.

so I came across an interesting discussion on LinkedIn which basically states that when carrying out an EICR if you come across an unidentified circuit with no documentation then this would be classed as verification and therefor not part of the EICR process.

There seems to be bit of an assumption there - i.e. that existing labelling/documentation is always accurate and reliable. I'd suggest that that isn't a safe assumption - rather it should be one of the things that should be checked during an EICR - and therefore starting with no labels/documentation isn't actually much of a impediment.

I'd also note that there were traditionally conventions that made conventional labelling less necessary - when I were a lad and rewireable fuseboxes were the norm, you could be fairly certain that red dots indicated a socket circuit, blue dots the immersion and white dots the lighting - and if there were more than one of each, the convention that most heavily loaded circuits would be closer to the incomer would narrow things down (e.g. the downstairs/kitchen sockets fuse would likely be closer to the main switch than the upstairs bedrooms circuit) or failing that the cable arrangement could give things away (one thick cable - cooker, two or more thinner ones - ring).  The words in pencil on the inside of the cover were only needed for the less usual arrangements.

  - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

you could be fairly certain that red dots indicated a socket circuit, blue dots the immersion and white dots the lighting

When my sister moved into her current house, with wiring from "way back then", no such luck.

AJJewsbury said:

There seems to be bit of an assumption there - i.e. that existing labelling/documentation is always accurate and reliable.

Agreed - my sister's house being case in point ... only two or 3 circuits across 2 no. 8 way metal-clad BS 3036 boards (originally Economy 7 type arrangement) were correctly labelled, the rest, sadly, not ! Over the years, gas heating had been put in, and the storage heaters disconnected. Some of the circuits re-purposed and it was a complete mess TBH.

Thank you for the reply that opinion goes with my own thoughts I thought It seems a strange approach that was been made as I've always worked with the belief that you should attempt to trace the circuit and if it cannot be found then it should be put down as an FI obviously depending on the size of the installation it's not often that a circuit cannot be found.