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.

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.