PIR/EICR

[riveralt]

best code of practice states;

"where during the course of inspection or testing, a real and immediate danger is found to be present in an installation (from an accessible live conductive part, for example), immediate action will be necessary to make safe before continuing."

That to my understanding says stop the inspection and make safe. with out making safe then there will be no EICR completed.

So where does it state that you become responsibile for making it safe? Your responsibility is to bring it to the immediate attention of the customer - give them advice etc - issue them with a danger notice even - but I repeat you do not have any legislative power to disconnect someones supply of electricity without their permission.

Tell me though oh wise one, having decided that you have a dangerous situation and having explained it to the customer (even issued a danger notice)- who promptly tells you thank you I will deal with it - what do you do next?

 

[RF Lighting]

There's still no RCD so it's still dangerous.

Let's say you can't find the rod.

By the way john this scenario wasn't really aimed at you.

Vibro said if he found an unsafe installation he would either isolate or make safe.

What would he do presented with this situation?

Its clearly dangerous as the RCD is required for fault protection. The inspector should make the customer aware of the danger. Hopefully the customer would agree to have the installation put right/safe. If not then the inspector should put it in writing to at least cover himself.

That's not what vibrobuilt would do.

A C1 on an EICR requires immediate attention as you would have identified a seriously dangerous situation and I would not just tell the customer, I would make safe immediately as a mater of safety. If that meant isolation of the supply then so be it. I could not walk away from a C1 and leave the high risk of electrocution.

Come on vibrobuilt, what would you do if presented with the scenario I detailed?

 

[JohnW2]

There's still no RCD so it's still dangerous. Let's say you can't find the rod.

I think my answer still stands. I see no real reason for doing anything precipitous, just because the lady has chosen to have an EICR done at this point in time. In practice, of course, she'd probably agree to whatever one told her needed to be done, if 'danger' or 'death' was mentioned.

By the way john this scenario wasn't really aimed at you. Vibro said if he found an unsafe installation he would either isolate or make safe. What would he do presented with this situation?

Yes I realised that it wasn't aimed at me. As you say, (s)he would presumably either isolate or make safe (perhaps with or without permission) - or, per his/her latest discovery from the guideline, walk away and refuse to complete the EICR inspection!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[RMS]

RF,

I now see what you were getting at

 

[RF Lighting]

I'm not as daft as I look you know

 

[vibrobullit407]

Depending on the time implication and cost of materials would be a factor of whether or not I would discuss with my QS before or after rectification. If there was a fault (C1) on the DNO's supply/equipment I would stay at the property and contact my QS to explain that the distributor needs to be contacted as a matter of urgency and explain to the customer what is happening. JownW2 is probably right in the sense that legally I might be in the wrong for isolating a supply but if there was a high chance of death I would stand by my actions. I certainly would not carry on with an EICR if a C1 was found as it would need rectifying before I could carry on as it would also present a danger to myself.

I would as mentioned earlier refer to my QS. The time and cost involved would not make this practicable to put right there and then.

 

[RF Lighting]

Where do you draw the line?

 

[vibrobullit407]

Where do you draw the line?

Lets put this in to perspective. If I came across something that was able to rectify at low cost and short time i.e, board blanks missing, bare live conductors I would rectify and as the cost would be low it would probably get soaked up in the cost of the EICR. If the scenario like you stated then I would follow advice from my QS. If in the scenario I asked with regards to the child with the live tail in hand I would rectify due to the short time and no material cost.

 

[starspark]

Vibro, are you for real? I quite clearly answered with my opinion and it was obviously clear and adequate to everyone else even down to the improvement notice being issued as someone else also said after myself.

Very unlike everything you have posted which everyone seems to disagree or have problems with.
Not a statement Vibro but a fact.
Please don't keep taking your frustration out on me as it is not warranted.
The way that you have conducted yourself so far on this forum in my opinion is petty and narrow sited and is certainly not appreciated. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

[starspark]

So now your saying you would soak up costs? After someone else said it and you accuse me of agreeing and commenting after someone else has said something?
Bit fickle isn't it?
What if your qs was unavailable???

 

[RF Lighting]

What if you went to a job and there was a live busbar chamber with no cover?

 

[17thman]

the clue is in the title "condition report" nothing more, nothing less

 

[vibrobullit407]

What if you went to a job and there was a live busbar chamber with no cover?

Are we now just going to go through all dangerous faults and see what my answer will be?

I work on domestic properties so the only busbar I would come across is in the CU. So if there was a CU front missing I would isolate and take advice from my QS. If my QS decides its better to give out a danger notice, then re energize then that is up to him as he is there to ultimately make these decisions.

I called round to a house A good couple of years ago to fault find on a shower circuit. On inspection I found that the shower enclosure was very badly damaged which thought posed a real risk. I could not get hold of my QS so I locked off the circuit and advised the customer that they needed the shower repaired as it posed a risk.

Would you leave this circuit energized and give a danger notice or would you isolate as I did?

 

[RF Lighting]

If the customer agreed for me to isolate then I would. I would explain to the customer the dangers posed but if they want the shower left energised, then I have no legal powers to isolate and would have to issue the danger notice and leave it in the condition I found it.

 

[riveralt]

I work on domestic properties so the only busbar I would come across is in the CU. So if there was a CU front missing I would isolate and take advice from my QS. If my QS decides its better to give out a danger notice, then re energize then that is up to him as he is there to ultimately make these decisions.

I can't believe you really are an electrician - your comments and single minded belief that you have the power and authority to come into someones property and disconnect their supply without their say is beyond pail - you really are away with the fairies aren't you or maybe your just a troll in disguise.
You don't seem to like answering any of the questions I put to you but I will try again. Who is missing from the scenario you painted above? Here's a hint, they are mentioned a few times on pages 6/7 of the Safety Council guidance notes on EICR.