EICR opinion please

[ebee]

A few years back - about 12 months before Part P actually came in so say the mid to end of 2004, a colleague of mine had done the C & G 2380 (Wiring Regs course) but unlike me had aborted his decision to do the C & G 2391 (Inspect and Test) course because at only a very few years before retirement he got a job with an NICEIC firm so he decided he wouldn`t be needing the I & T certificate. The firm folded and Part P had come in so he came working with me for a couple of years and his jobs became my jobs and we worked together on both our jobs and I was the qualifying supervisor.
Anyway, I showed him the correct procedure for I & T whilst we were working together and he was gobsmacked. Apparently the other firm tested one new build and certified 20 identical installations based solely on the test results of that particular one only. (actually many of the tests were not done properly either buts another issue). So you could have as many as 19 defective installations bearing so called test results of one other. But this actually was greatly demonstrated as a flawed test procedure by that one installation we shared - No ring continuity on one ring final. We had a quick visual check of the sockets we had wired in to see if any were missing. "Phill, have you checked all of yours?", "Yes" , "All of them?" "yes", "Did you check the one in the loft?", "No but i will get ladders out and check it now but I am certain I did connect it, whoops, oh no i didn`t, I will do it now!" . Anyway retested and all OK.
I asked him what would happen if he or others did likewise at the other firm, potentially 19 bad uns out of the 20 he said. LOL.

I have stood in some houses looking at periodics and wondering if I am in the correct house even though the addresses do match up what I see in front of me does not. LOL

 

[JohnW2]

.... Apparently the other firm tested one new build and certified 20 identical installations based solely on the test results of that particular one only. (actually many of the tests were not done properly either buts another issue). So you could have as many as 19 defective installations bearing so called test results of one other. ...

Oh Dear! However, I would suspect that firm knew full well that what they were doing was 'not acceptable', but were merely thinking of 'time and money', don't you?

.... I have stood in some houses looking at periodics and wondering if I am in the correct house even though the addresses do match up what I see in front of me does not. LOL

Yes, I've had very similar experiences - in 'both directions' (i.e. I've seen some cases in which the installation seemed quite reasonable, but with a report showing countless C2s, if not 'worse'!).

As I've said repeatedly, I really do think that EICRs (and the people who undertake them) ought to be 'regulated'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I have stood in some houses looking at periodics and wondering if I am in the correct house even though the addresses do match up what I see in front of me does not. LOL

I'm finding rental EICR's frequently don't tally with the installation, Had one a few months ago with both Immersion heater and electric shower circuits as C1, it had neither. We suggested the agency not pay the bill.
However the property had both when they previously did a PIR/EICR and both were genuinely faulty and they simply repeated the same faults.

 

[Astra99]

However the property had both when they previously did a PIR/EICR and both were genuinely faulty and they simply repeated the same faults.

Surely this must be fraud???? Anyone care to comment?

 

[SUNRAY]

Surely this must be fraud???? Anyone care to comment?

Sadly the industry built up around PAT & PIR/EICR contains a disappointing amount of incorrect/unreliable content.

 

[JohnW2]

Surely this must be fraud???? Anyone care to comment?

If they had simply copied the previous report (and not done an inspection) but had submitted a bill for doing the imnspect, I can't see that there could be much doubt that it was fraud.

However, proving that such was what they had done might not be so easy, particularly if the report was fairly old ("that;'s wot it was like when we inspected, guv").

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Sadly the industry built up around PAT & PIR/EICR contains a disappointing amount of incorrect/unreliable content.

The whole industry needs a right good shake up.

 

[JohnW2]

The whole industry needs a right good shake up.

As I've been saying for a long time, these 'testing' activities(and those who do them) definitely (in my opinion) appear to be in serious need of being 'regulated'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DIYWell]

Main issue I have with EICRs is the tester finds a "fault" then quotes to fix it

 

[JohnW2]

Main issue I have with EICRs is the tester finds a "fault" then quotes to fix it

That the issue that is often illustrated here, and which we frequently discuss.

As I often explain, I see quite a lot of EICRs being comissioned and umdertaken. Wherever possible we use one of the electricinas we have come to know very well and trust. However, whenever we have to start using someone new, we make it very clear that until he/she has done a few EICRs for us, to our satisfaction, we are definitely not going to use them to undertake any remedial work which is required. Most of them accept this without complaint, probably not the least because they realise that if they 'get into our good books', they may well then quite a lot of work from us in the future.

Interestingly, it is far from all 'one-sided'. I would say that, of those who we 'try' in this way, but decide not to continue asking to do EICRs for us, in at least half of those cases (probably more) the reason has been their failure to report defects of which I was already aware, not because they had reported the need for 'unnecessary' remedial work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

Yes indeed.
In fact for many years for certain customers I have arranged for a particular contractor to do an EICR etc at a "fixed cost" and without chance of any remedials and I myself have quoted for remedials.
Obviously that does not absolutely guarantee completely unbiased results but usually demonstrates the possibility of a chance of fairness.
It`s always been acceptable to those I quoted to.

In fact I once was asked to quote based on an EICR of one particular contractor whose "EICRs" I had seen many times.
My answer was " Place that document in File 13" .
"Huh"
I did not even read the "EICR" but tore it in two and threw it in the bin, they then realised what the age old saying "File 13" meant.

 

[Murdochcat]

Sadly the industry built up around PAT & PIR/EICR contains a disappointing amount of incorrect/unreliable content.

That's because the cowboys offer to reports in 1 hour for peanuts - then try to generate work or the LL ignores the unsatisfactory report ..........

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Main issue I have with EICRs is the tester finds a "fault" then quotes to fix it

Main issue I have with MOT's is the tester finds a 'fault', then quotes to fix it.

 

[DIYWell]

Main issue I have with MOT's is the tester finds a 'fault', then quotes to fix it.

By law, every local authority runs a garage that does just MOTs, not remedials. This is how they maintain their fleet. They also have to open the testing site to the public. No doubt the garage will be in some inconvenient location, but it's there. And they don't publicise it of course.

 

[Murdochcat]

Main issue I have with EICRs is the tester finds a "fault" then quotes to fix it

I price doing EICRs on the basis I won’t be back. If the customer wants me to price the fixed I will

I have been known to put in a very high price for remedials to ensure I don’t get the work