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.

No.

I can, however, see merit in them being digitized and stored securely for the benefit of new owners or even bona fide prospective purchasers. Perhaps the DNOs could do it?

In fact, there might even be some merit in making supplies conditional upon a current satisfactory EICR/EIC.

I don't see why the DNOs could not maintain the Database of EICR/EIC.  After all they are in the correct areana.  Obviouslt cost and resource will need to be allocated. 

Chris Pearson said:

benefit of new owners or even bona fide prospective purchasers

Worth remembering the thr PRS (Private Rental Sector) also require regular EICR and I am assuming the social houseing will soon follow suit with the same EICR requirement.

Prospective tenants can ask in writing to view an EICR and the landlord must supply it within 28 days.

Councils should hold a database of unsatisfactory EICRs, as copies must be sent to them. Whether landlords do this is another matter, probably just get remedials done and have a pass EICR issued.

OlympusMons said:

Prospective tenants can ask in writing to view an EICR and the landlord must supply it within 28 days.

This is true but the CPS (Competent Person Scheme) would find it easier to do a spot check if there was a database they could look up for one of the memebers and do spot checks.  This would help weed out any EICR that are not a rigerous as they should be.  Again Grenfell inquirey shows 1 person doing 5 EICRs in one day.  The databse could also be used by the insurance companies to check of the state of the instalation if an EICR is present on the database. 

OlympusMons said:

Councils should hold a database of unsatisfactory EICRs

Do the councils have a competent person trained to interpret the EICR that are unsatisfactory or satisfactory?  I suspect for them (local council) this is just a tick box exercise. 

Prospective tenants can ask in writing to view an EICR and the landlord must supply it within 28 days.

And this is the very thing feeding the drive-by EICR.Neither the person requesting nor the person performing the inspection has any great incentive for it  to be thorough, just a 'pass' with minumum expense. Now if the inspector or the landlord had ' skin in the game' then that woudl be a different matter.

Now of course it may be that parliament is considering adding another piece of legislation to inadvertantly encourage the con-men - although currenty in the draft stages I reckon it has a reasonably good chance of escaping into law in a year or two, without too much expert thought.

Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/46507/documents/1798

Mike

Well spotted!

The main problem, IMHO, is that the absence of an EICR is unlikely to deter a prospective purchaser; and in any event, there is nothing to stop a prospective purchaser right now from requesting one or even making an offer conditional upon one.

• Thanks Mike. I notice that the legislation is ambulatory.