Sergio Fernandez said:

Should EICR (Electrical Instalation Condition Report) be stored nationally or locally in a digital format in a similar way to an EPC (Energy Performance Certificate)?

That would require a complete change and the end of hand written paper reports and certificates unless they can be scanned or photographed to be added to the online database, the whole process would quite possibly have to become standardised with a process similar to the Energy Performance Certificate system.

That would almost certainly require job specific training and qualifications such as those EPC surveyors have.

This is why I started this debate.  So people in the industry could have a voice and an opinion.  Someone has previously suggested that the EICR could be stored and manatined and managed by the DNO/DSO/MO.  It could be possibly tied in with the MPAN number. 

Hand written EICR could have a picture taken while a transition period to electronic EICR become a normal thing. 

Our local DNO does not even have records relating to its own installation to and in people’s home.

Column 1253 

hansard.parliament.uk/.../Levelling-UpAndRegenerationBill

I fear he is optimistic

"Somebody must hold the electrical testing certificates for these properties. I do not expect the Government to hold them but somebody does"

Why should they  unless they are told they have to ? The lights come on and socket  work perfectly well without a written record.  Customer sees no use in keeping the paperwork, except maybe the top sheet saying 'pass' and the contractor won't want it after the warranty period has expired and in some cases won't even be in business.
The DNO's I agree seem to struggle with the records of their own bits following merging of electricity boards and then privatisation back again, and operate on a time line  that is very different to the indoor stuff - 'new' is anything less than about 30 years in some parts round here, and the general approach is either to quote a book value 'assume 0.3 ohms' or to say  something like 'we need to come and look at it, then we can tell you what and where that cable it is'.

Which is safe and reliable, but not the slick semi-automated sort of record keeping  visualised the honourable Lord Rooker. ;-)

Mike.

I am currently making software for eicrs. It will be available for anybody to use and only registered electricians can access the database for editing. The completed eicrs will be available to everbody but excluding customer details,  electrician details and circuit labels. I am thinking of some way to report bad eicrs but haven't given this too much thought at the moment as it would cost a lot of time to go through reported eicrs.

I've made it so existing electricians can create a report from another uploaded report too and will also include a way for existing reports( handwritten too) to be added but this may be at further cost of £5-£10 each 

I'll repost once I've finished, I'm around 90% there 

It might be counter productive to have a report quality check in the main path of the software, if all it does is encourage the badgers to learn a set of  'good' answers.
Assessing if the results are likely to be spoofed or not may be better as a separate optional step.

You'd probably need it to emulate the sort of review that happens when an eicr gets posted here, which is quite tricky, as there are a lot of 'if- but maybe not if else ' which are computationally hard.

How do you propose to check the registered electrician part ?

clearly not all electricians are equal.

And while it is not quite the same, I do have a flat that my wife and I rent out, bought when she was working nearer London, and the rental agent in  good faith offered the services of his £50 test merchants for the electrics. I declined, and in the interests of fairness got a good friend to mark my homework and raise the paperwork instead, but most landlords would not know any better.

However, the very real problem does exist that in most cases, there is no appetite for (nor really the danger level to justify) an inspection at a level of quality that will really do much good, given the cost and disruption needed to do it well.

Mike.

Just changing tack back to the matter of insurance and the like. Firstly, how many people have been refused a mortgage because of the presence of a BS3036 consumer unit in the property they propose to buy?

Secondly, how many people have been refused a home insurance claim because there was no RCD protection fitted to the property' installation?

I would suspect that both mortgage lenders and insurance companies wouldn't last long if they began to refuse either upon what are seen as 'technicalities'.

I would suspect that credit worthiness comes in at the top of the list and that any notion of a satisfactory EICR lies a long way down the column of satisfactory criteria for eligibility, that is if one is even mentioned at all.

whjohnson said:

BS3036 consumer unit

Mortgages and insurance are not refused.

However if you were to make an insurance claims for lets say fire damage and the the report from the fire service states the fire started on or around the CU, I am sure the insurance company COULD use it as a reason to not pay out in full or reduce the amount they pay out.  The same is also true of car insurance. 

because of the presence of a BS3036 consumer unit

Why should that be any kind of issue? BS 7671 still deems them acceptable (e.g. 432.4, table 41.2(c)) for the majority of situations - so no reason they should even be mentioned on an EICR let alone result in an unsatisfactory.

   - Andy.