Hey everyone
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. So my question is when we do come across an unidentified circuit would we need to put this down as a limitation on the test circuit and wait for this verification to be carried out?
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.
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).
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).
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)?
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).
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).
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.
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:
Thank you for your input you've definitely got a wealth of knowledge and you've brought up some very interesting points.
Regarding what you said about a poor connection or a corded connection as you've said and as it's known we tend to work on a sample base which usually only covers a 20% visual inspection. So if on this bases something did happen which wasn't picked up on our visual inspection who would be liable if any injury occured from this or would it be classes as something completely different.
who would be liable if any injury occured from this or would it be classes as something completely different.
We're getting into the legal side of things now, and of course I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that you could only be liable for the truth ('veracity') of what you have said you've done, provided you say that in your contract for doing the work, and provided what you've done is 'reasonable' in the terms of what a 'competent person' would do in performing the contract.
John Peckham may be able to provide some further guidance based on his experience here.
Liability might arise in at least 3 ways: criminal (e.g. failure to comply with H&S legislation); contract (e.g. you contracted to inspect all sockets, but only did 20%); or tort (negligence).
If you sampled, say 20% of socket outlets and one of the remaining 80% caught fire soon afterwards, it is difficult to see how that could be negligent if the advice on sampling in GN 3 (3.8.4 in my edition) has been followed. So I don't think that you need to worry about that.
I believe you should always test every accessible socket outlet on the circuit being tested, using R1+R2 tests, which will verify the connection and allow you to inspect them visually. The sampling rate for the inspection over five years is 20% of the socket outlet circuits of the whole installation. So you are not liable if you have not tested or inspected that circuit yet. This only applies to more complex installations. For a domestic property, you need to test everything every time.
I sense a degree of self-contradiction here: "every accessible socket" ... "For a domestic property, you need to test everything every time". What about the socket behind the Victorian triple wardrobe or bookcase?
If a socket is hidden behind a Victorian triple wardrobe or bookcase and cannot be reached for inspection, you should state in part 6 of the EICR that the socket is not accessible.
I appreciate your feedback, but I don’t think there is any need to be so meticulous about my wording or sentences (not the first time) I clearly stated at the beginning of my statement that I was referring to accessible sockets only. Do you have a particular reason for questioning my choice of words? Did you study engineering or English?
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
