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 ?

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.

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. 

Sam Ayre said:

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? 

Ouch!

Ouch!