EICR opinion please

[ebee]

Completely irrelevant.



Irrelevant.



This is a quote for the job and the prices are high, given the parts are freely available at much lower cost.



Do you ever read the actual question? Sunray has stated the company is supplying and fitting.

Hiya Scousespark,
could you elaborate a little bit on your "irrelevant" comments and your comment about Eric putting a mark up on parts please?

 

[JohnW2]

I feel all domestic premises should have all circuits with RCD protection, but unless TT this is secondary protection, so it is only recommended.

That is simply not true. There has never been a time when BS7671 "recommended but did not require" the additional protection of an RCD. From the very first mention of RCDs (when they were only required in very few situations) they were required in the situations in question, not merely 'recommended'.

Perhaps ironically, this is the one and only situation in which BS7671 gives any guidance as regards the coding of EICRs - saying that the absence of a required RCD should be given "at least a C3".

With a TT then yes C2 or even C1, but not with TN, however this is a personal opinion, there is no rule either way.

I realise that this is complictaed by the fact that it's down to the discretion of the inspector, I personally find it hard to see that the absence of RCD protection in a TT installation (or absence of an OPD in a TN one) really qualifies as "C1", since there is no 'immediate' danger. Such a deficiency would only present a danger if some other fault to arise, so I can't see how it can be regarded as an 'immediate' danger. However, that's just my opinion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

.... but as long as the items are listed, and it would have passed when designed, then no one can really say the report is in error.

As has been implied by ebee, this is also simply not true.

The terms of reference of an EICR are to determine whether, at the time of inspection, the installation fully complies with the requirements of the version of BS7671 current at the time of the inspection (i.e. the 'current' version' - regardless of whether or not the installation was compliant with the version of BS7671 which was applicable when the installation (or oparts of it) were designed.

Every edition of BS7671 says that things which were compliant when designed/installed, but not compliant with current regs "may not be unsafe", but that doesn't alter the fact that any non-compliance with the edition current at the time of the EICR has to be reported, and (at the discretion of the inspector) 'coded' appropriately. The inspector always has the option of C3 for a non-compliance (with current regs) which they feels does not require more than a 'recommendation'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

At one point I worked as an auto electrician, we would sell an alternator at around £18 over the counter as a trade sale, but would sell it at £22 retail plus £6 fitting charge if fitted in the workshops to a car, we had a standard charge for most cars, with a win some loose some idea, fitting an alternator the a Lada Niva was a nightmare, as clearly designed as left hand drive, with right hand drive models it was a manifold removal job. Steering box was in the way.

If the alternator was to fail, then we would expect those bought over the counter to be replaced over the counter, so no cost to replace it. But if fitted in the garage, then we had to do the work of fitting it twice so we would loose money, the extra between trade and retail cost of the alternator paid for the times when we needed to do the job twice.

This idea is true for most trades, so if the customer asks one to supply and fit, if it goes wrong, there is no charge to the customer, but if the customer supplies it, then there would be, this is why we charge retail price, it covers for work involved to replace it.

As to regulations, CENELEC harmonization documents may well be retrospective, but BS 7671 is not, but the changes in BS 7671 are made to comply with CENELEC harmonization documents in some cases, there is a list in BS 7671 of the document consulted when new editions are released.

So it may not be required by BS 7671 to alter an installation for it to comply, however other publications may require it, or even have dates at which before that date it is exempt.

We see this with cars, and rules like seat belts, I remember the old Reliant Regal van, the seat belt anchor points needed to go to the chassis to comply with force they must stand, but the seat was bolted to the body, so in an accident the body could brake away from the chassis, so the seat belt could cut the occupant in half, so the latter versions the chassis had extra bits welded on so seat was bolted to chassis, so seat belts could be used. But to weld would mean body needed removing from chassis, so to add seat belts to older models was simply not possible. Think the car was classed as a trike so did not need seat belts anyway, same way the Citroen Ami today is classed as a quad so does not need same crash protection.

But some times to try and upgrade is simply not possible without a massive rewire, there is today normally some way around the problem, kinetic light switches and the like where only twin and earth ran between two way switches for example. But with my own house we had to cut a large hole in the ceiling to be able to fit a new consumer unit. This requires multi trades involvement so to do within the 28 days allowed with the landlord EICR was simply not going to happen.

So had it not been owner occupied I would have had to evict the tenants until modifications were complete, if given a code C2, so it would have been rather important not to give a C2 unless really required. The electrical safety council did publish a picture of an old Wilex fuse box saying how it could still be used. My son still has a pair in use, maybe there should be a C3 as no cover on the MCB's but not really a C2. And since he has keys for garage where they are, it would be classed like any switch room, where no unauthorised person is permitted. Remember he is an electrician and clobbers shoes are always the worst.

However an EICR no longer includes code 4 and the whole reason for removing code 4 was it was felt unhelpful to list what would not be allowed if it were a new installation, the inspection is no longer linked to BS 7671 requirements, the inspector has to decide if it is potentially dangerous and he may decide that spikes on the supply could cause items to fail which are required for the safety of people using the premises, for example it could damage the smoke alarm, so could award a C2 for no SPD, on the other hand he may decide there is no need for any RCD's, the decision is his, not anyone on this forum, or anyone else, it is his personal option, and although maybe guided by BS 7671, he is not forced to follow it, and even though German sockets have never been allowed in this country he may decide they are not a problem so have no code. It is up to the inspector to decide, no one else.

 

[ericmark]

The terms of reference of an EICR are to determine whether, at the time of inspection, the installation fully complies with the requirements of the version of BS7671 current at the time of the inspection

This is code 4, and code 4 has been dropped. I may not agree with it, but it has been dropped.

 

[JohnW2]

This is code 4, and code 4 has been dropped. I may not agree with it, but it has been dropped.

Yes, it would have been code 4 (when that was available) IF the inspector did not feel the need to 'recommend improvement', but if he/she did feel that such a recommendation was appropriate, then it would (and always would have been) C3.

As I said, if one wants to follow the guidance in BS7671, one has to give at least a C3 to the absence of a 'required' RCD.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

However an EICR no longer includes code 4 and the whole reason for removing code 4 was it was felt unhelpful to list what would not be allowed if it were a new installation, the inspection is no longer linked to BS 7671 requirements,

I don't really agree with that. An EICR is still very much "linked to (current) BS 7671 requirements". The only difference since the loss of code 4 is that the inspector is now free to not code at all a non-compliance that he/she does not feel even deserves a 'recommendation' to rectify it - whereas in the days of code 4, I presume it was expected that the inspector would give a C4 for any/all no-compliances that he/she did not feel warranted a C3.

the inspector has to decide if it is potentially dangerous and he may decide that spikes on the supply could cause items to fail which are required for the safety of people using the premises, for example it could damage the smoke alarm, so could award a C2 for no SPD,

That's an interesting one, given that BS 7671 allows the owner of the installation to 'decline the offer' of SPDs. Are you suggesting that an inspector can (by giving a C2) 'force' an SPD on someone who does not want it?

on the other hand he may decide there is no need for any RCD's, ...

I think you need to explain that one!!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I think the PIR or EICR have always been problematic they never have had a fixed agenda as to what code is awarded.

Until required by landlord laws it really did not matter, the owner could decide what wanted doing, codes could be and often were ignored.

The schemes can police what passes and fails, but more EICR are not supported by scheme membership, so even scheme members can code as they wish, there is no fixed this passes and this fails.

With commercial premises the owners are understandably worried about lost of equipment, so lack of SPD can cause some claim equipment to fail, including lights.

I watch a discussion of a group with included @flameport where the lack of SPD was considered by some to be a C2, at the time I did not agree, but on reflection I can see the points made.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the PIR or EICR have always been problematic they never have had a fixed agenda as to what code is awarded.

Indeed, we have often discussed that. As with MOTs etc. etc., there will always be the need for the inspector to be allowed some degree of discretion/judgement, since not everything is 'black and white', but, at least in my opinion, there should be fairly explicit guidance, perhaps even 'instruction' about coding on EICRs when that is possible.

To add to the unsatisfactory situation,it appears that some of the trade organisations make up their own guidance (with which not everyone may agree) about some aspects of this issue, and probably impose that 'guidance' on their fee-paying members.

As you are aware, aware, I am personally also very unhappy with the lack of regulation. As I've often said, my view is that one should have to be licensed/registered in order to be allowed to conduct EICRs,and those who persistently provide 'unsatisfactory' EICRs should be banned from undertaking EICRs for life!

Until required by landlord laws it really did not matter, the owner could decide what wanted doing, codes could be and often were ignored.

It's always 'mattered' to some people. Although, as you say, some people have simply ignored EICR findings that they didn't like, others have been misled (deliberately or otherwise) into having expensive and unnecessary 'remedial work undertaken - and, again, the lack of regulation has prevented anything stopping that happening.

I watch a discussion of a group with included @flameport where the lack of SPD was considered by some to be a C2, at the time I did not agree, but on reflection I can see the points made.

It is true that life and/or limb may depend upon uninterrupted functioning of equipment - whether life-supporting or other medical equipment, smoke alarms or whatever.

However, any such equipment can fail, and I strongly suspect much more commonly due to something that an SPD could not have prevented than to something which an SPD might conceivably have prevented. If life/limb is dependent upon continued functioning of the equipment, then that risk must be addressed by some sort of 'back-up' provisions, not by installing an SPD.

Quite apart from anything else, I think the issue of SPDs is far more contentious than that of 'Type' of RCD. We simply do not know, and probably never will know to any appreciable extent, what proportion of failures of electronic equipment are due to things which an SPD might possibly have prevented - although, as I've said, in my personal experience, and the experiences of those around me, 'premature failure' of anything electronic is very rare, so any cases due to spikes/surges which an SPD might have been able to deal with must be even rarer.

Furthermore, the SPDs we're talking about are only attempts at 'voltage limiters'. They cannot do anything about 'spikes' with very short rise times if their peak voltage is not 'high', but such pulses can also, again at least theoreticall;y, damage electronic equipment.

L must again observe that it is not that long ago at all to the time when any mention of 'surge supression' in this or similar forums almost invariably resulted in responses referring to 'snake oil' and 'charlatans'

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I totally agree with what you have said, I paid out for a series of courses and took a series of exams to show I have the skill to inspect and test, however there is nothing to say one has to do that.

I read with interest the electrical safety councils take one best practice, and could not believe they would even comment on equipment in an installation inspection, the same now with the landlord law, it seems to include more than the installation

“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter;
“fixed building services” means any part of, or any controls associated with—
(a) fixed internal or external lighting systems, but does not include emergency escape lighting or specialist process lighting; or
(b) fixed systems for heating, hot water, air conditioning or mechanical ventilation;

So the central heating system is included with the EICR. So much for not removing boiler covers unless gas safe, unless there is a notice to say otherwise, we need to inspect.

 

[JohnW2]

I totally agree with what you have said, I paid out for a series of courses and took a series of exams to show I have the skill to inspect and test, however there is nothing to say one has to do that.

Indeed. It's a bit ridiculous that, say, I could theoretically undertake an EICR. The regulation/licensing I would like to see would require both qualifications and a reasonable amount of experience for anyone allowed to undertake EICRs.

I read with interest the electrical safety councils take one best practice, and could not believe they would even comment on equipment in an installation inspection, the same now with the landlord law, it seems to include more than the installation .... So the central heating system is included with the EICR. So much for not removing boiler covers unless gas safe, unless there is a notice to say otherwise, we need to inspect.

Since the 'landlord legislation' does not explicitly mention "EICR"s, I suppose it is free to require any sort of inspection that takes its fancy.

However, despite what you say, I don't think the inspection required by that legislation is actually any different from a standard EICR. Although, as you say, the legislation's definition of an "electrical installation" includes 'fixed equipment' such as CH controls etc., the only I&T of the installation required by the legislation is that necessary to confirm that the "electrical safety standards" (which is defined as compliance with BS 7671:2018) are met. Since connected equipment is beyond the scope of BS 7671, I therefore don't think it would need to be inspected/tested to satisfy the legislation.

That legislation requires that the person undertaking the I&T be 'qualified' - which, at first sight, sounds promising. However, their definition of 'qualified' only requires that the person is "competent" (which is not defined) to undertake the I&T and any remedial work. Arrogant though it might be, I would like to think that I probably have such 'competence but, as above, I do not think that I should be allowed to undertake any EICR, let alone one required under this legislation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

I do not think that I should be allowed to undertake any EICR, let alone one required under this legislation.

Although, in reality, you might have far much more than some who actually do such EICRs etc in the real world

 

[EFLImpudence]

The problem is that the unscrupulous don't care and neither do the powers that be.

 

[JohnW2]

Although, in reality, you might have far much more than some who actually do such EICRs etc in the real world

Although, as I said, it represents a fair degree of 'arrogance' on my part, that is, indeed, what worries me.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The problem is that the unscrupulous don't care and neither do the powers that be.

Seemingly rue.

I suppose it's just conceivable that appearance of the 'landlord legislation' will eventually result in the PTB being forced to start 'caring', at least as far as the rental sector is concerned - if some of the big/wealthy landlords make a lot of fuss about what they are suffering as a result of 'unsatisfactory EICRs'?

Kind Regards, John