Failed EICR

[securespark]

Can't remember what the issue was, but if they tested and found no continuity on the ring final circuit, they wouldn't necessarily chase and rectify the fault, but it would go down as FI:
Further Investigation needed.
If I come across an easy to fix issue (like broken ring continuity in the socket I am opening up to inspect) then I will sort it out as part of refitting the socket.
When my parents in law bought a house in 2002, the report they had done said broken continuity on GF ring final. The company doing the report quoted for it. When I came to do the work, I was crawling around under the floor as I had found only one cable in a lounge socket. Hanging under the joists was the missing cable, bared off and live! You never know the odd things you will find.

 

[aptsys]

"33 Consumer Unit not in order - C2" wtf?

I also see no issue with "Oversized breakers"

Please do instruct your own electrician to perform an EICR.

 

[JohnW2]

A last thing I would like to know: the "Ring main investigation" mentioned on the quote, isn't it something that they should have done as part of the EICR, or is it just normal work that they have to do after the remedial works to check that remedial works have been done the correct way?

Can't remember what the issue was, but if they tested and found no continuity on the ring final circuit, they wouldn't necessarily chase and rectify the fault, but it would go down as FI:

They might do that - BUT the 'no continuity' would (should!) then be recorded in the EICR's Schedule - which it isn't!

The more I look at that EICR, the more anomalies I see. Talking of that Schedule, there are only two circuits for which (satisfactory) 'ring final end-to-end impedances' ('continuity') have been recorded - the "kitchen sockets" and "upstairs sockets" circuits.

There are three other "sockets" circuits (circuits 5, 6 & 7), recorded as having 2.5mm² cable on B32 MCBs. Whilst there are (satisfactory) R1+R2 figures recorded for those three circuits, the 'ring final end-to-end impedances' are all recorded as "N/A" for those three circuits. So are these actually 'ring finals' or are they (seemingly non-compliant) 2.5mm² 32A radials - and, if rings, why have ring continuity tests not been undertaken (or, at least, recorded)?

... and what does "lim" mean in all the 'circuit impedance' columns (including the 'ring final continuity' ones) for the cooker circuit?

... and is it really credible that all the circuits have Installation Method 100? I'm not sure how an inspector is meant to tell, but to assume thay are all Method 100 seems a bit odd - is that perhaps 'normal' (maybe 'conservative') practice?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

I would expect to see installation method 101 used as a cover all / worst case scenario if the true method can not be established which is unlikely on a normal EICR.

 

[JohnW2]

I would expect to see installation method 101 used as a cover all / worst case scenario if the true method can not be established which is unlikely on a normal EICR.

Yes, that would make sense - since, as I said, I'm not sure how an inspector could be expected to 'know'. To assume 100 for everything seems a little odd!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would think N/A would be more appropriate.

Surely 100 or 101 would render most circuits unsatisfactory.

 

[JohnW2]

I would think N/A would be more appropriate. Surely 100 or 101 would render most circuits unsatisfactory.

A good few, I imagine.

It seems daft to expect the installation method to be recorded on an EICR since it is very often going to be little more than a guess.

Do you think that "N/A" would be acceptable to Mr Jobsworth, or might he expect that to be coded as F1 (aka 'fail')?!

Kind Regards, john

 

[EFLImpudence]

It seems daft to expect the installation method to be recorded on an EICR since it is very often going to be little more than a guess.

That the form caters for everything does not mean everything will be inspected.

Do you think that "N/A" would be acceptable to Mr Jobsworth, or might he expect that to be coded as F1 (aka 'fail')?

Lim, then.

I see there is Lim entered for the Supplier's fuse. It would be silly to put 40A just in case.

 

[SimonH2]

the "Ring main investigation" mentioned on the quote, isn't it something that they should have done as part of the EICR, or is it just normal work that they have to do after the remedial works to check that remedial works have been done the correct way?

As said, typically no unless it was something quick and easy to find, or you'd agreed with them in advance that they could take a bit more time (billable) to look for the issue.

I also see no issue with "Oversized breakers"

I do - as mentioned, there are what appear to be radials in 2.5mm² on 32A breakers. But "oversized breakers" isn't an acceptable description of the problem - it should state which ones, and why. They have actually double counted that as well, as they've listed the same fault as item 15 (adequacy of cables for current carrying capacity) and 17 (protective devices ... suitable for fault protection) ... So items 15, 17, and 34 are the same issue. And I think 26 and 35 are the same issue as well.

... and what does "lim" mean in all the 'circuit impedance' columns (including the 'ring final continuity' ones) for the cooker circuit?

My guess for that is that the connections at the cooker end aren't accessible so they didn't test. On that one, they aren't even consistent - the report says the switch is not accessible, the quote is to fit one.

As others have said, that report is a pile of fiction and cannot be trusted. But under the new law, the clock is ticking on the 28 days allowed for remediation.


Q for the OP - does this large company claim membership of one of the competent persons scams, err I mean schemes ? I.e. is NICEIC, NAPIT, or something like that on their paperwork ?
If so, then they need reporting to the scam, and also to Trading Standards. Neither will lift a finger (the scams are only interested in their membership fees so don't throw people out unless they can't hide it, and trading standard don't have the manpower) - but if people don't report these scams, then there will be nothing to indicate to the authorities that there is a problem to be dealt with.

 

[JohnW2]

That the form caters for everything does not mean everything will be inspected.

... but that seems to include 'catering for' something which almost never can be inspected!

Lim, then. .... I see there is Lim entered for the Supplier's fuse. It would be silly to put 40A just in case.

Ah, is that what "lim" means?! So why do all the impedance/resistance measurements for the "cooker circuit" on this EICR have "lim" recorded, then, I wonder?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

As others have said, that report is a pile of fiction and cannot be trusted. But under the new law, the clock is ticking on the 28 days allowed for remediation. .... Q for the OP - does this large company claim membership of one of the competent persons scams, err I mean schemes ? I.e. is NICEIC, NAPIT, or something like that on their paperwork ? .... If so, then they need reporting to the scam, and also to Trading Standards. Neither will lift a finger (the scams are only interested in their membership fees so don't throw people out unless they can't hide it, and trading standard don't have the manpower) - but if people don't report these scams, then there will be nothing to indicate to the authorities that there is a problem to be dealt with.

Quite so.

I think this underlines my belief that the only real solution would be for people (and companies) to have to be in some way 'licensed' to undertake 'landlord EICRs' - so that, in a case like this, if the 'big company' were so licenced, a number of complaints such as the one we're discussing would hopefully result in that license being revoked - or, at least, the threat of that possibility would cause such companies (and individual electricians) to 'change their ways'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

... but that seems to include 'catering for' something which almost never can be inspected!

...but sometimes it might be.
Isn't the form more or less the same as EIC schedules?

Ah, is that what "lim" means?! So why do all the impedance/resistance measurements for the "cooker circuit" on this EICR have "lim" recorded, then, I wonder?

Limitation, yes.
Agreed with householder things which are not being or cannot be tested.

Whether it is correct in this case, we don't know.

 

[JohnW2]

...but sometimes it might be. Isn't the form more or less the same as EIC schedules?

The one we are looking at doesn't correspond exactly to a BS7671 example form but, in fact, BS7671 offers only one example 'schedule' form (the "Generic Schedule of Test Results"), which hence presumably applies to both EICs and EICRs. So, yes, probably more than merely "more-or-less" the same, at least in terms of 'BS7671 forms'.

Limitation, yes. ... Agreed with householder things which are not being or cannot be tested. ... Whether it is correct in this case, we don't know.

True. If agreed limitations were documented, we have not been shown the relevant page.

Kind Regards, John