I think you might struggle with how much to reveal or not without  too much site specific or personal information. Just because you can reveal to all and sundry that you have a dedicated circuit for a burglar alarm in the loft and the fact it's insualtion resistance has been tested, and cables for CCTV or gate controls are in ducting or mural wired or something, it may not be wise to do so.

However cutting it back to 'pass'  or 'fail' or a letter grade in the manner of the EPC is unlikely to be any use to anyone performing  follow on work.

That said, I must admit I'm amazed that folk are happy with the degree of disclosure in an EPC so perhaps I am out of step with the idea of what is OK to publish.

Mike

I agree it may need to a revised edition.  Maybe just listing circuit ways from 1 to 15 and not the actual use.  It should certainly show the installer and tester details.  This could be used by the next tester or even the HSE or the a CPS like Napit to do spot checks.  As an example the Grenfell inquiry has brought a question mark of how 5 quality EICRs were done by 1 person in one day.  There are also many anecdotal stories in the industry of maybe EICR/EICs been done from possibly the van.  In my eyes the EICR should give an accurate representation of the state of the installation. 

I agree - generally we need a bit more honesty about the (lack of )value of the 'drive by inspection'.

I am split two ways. If this level of effort  is all we can afford and think is sensible, it is safer not to bother, as it gives a false sense of safe, and we need to be honest that we are accepting a  risk with that -Clearly buildings are not that really dangerous compared to other things in life  like cars , and even for that the cost benefit is such that it is perfectly safe to cancel MOTs in a pandemic...

There is a similar question about the value of councils filing partP reports that they do not realy know what to do with.

And I'm not that sure about the competence of some of those EPC assesments either.

The other part of me would  prefer a full blown test properly done, but even the smallest place will need  a couple of blokes for at least a morning and fittings open and boards up, but that is very disruptive and perhaps best only at change of use or change of ownership.

Mike.

I agree - generally we need a bit more honesty about the (lack of )value of the 'drive by inspection'.

I am split two ways. If this level of effort  is all we can afford and think is sensible, it is safer not to bother, as it gives a false sense of safe, and we need to be honest that we are accepting a  risk with that -Clearly buildings are not that really dangerous compared to other things in life  like cars , and even for that the cost benefit is such that it is perfectly safe to cancel MOTs in a pandemic...

There is a similar question about the value of councils filing partP reports that they do not realy know what to do with.

And I'm not that sure about the competence of some of those EPC assesments either.

The other part of me would  prefer a full blown test properly done, but even the smallest place will need  a couple of blokes for at least a morning and fittings open and boards up, but that is very disruptive and perhaps best only at change of use or change of ownership.

Mike.