Why are you believing Wikipedia (which could have been written and may be edited by anyone) and not ESF's own web site?
Selling house - buyers EICR report
- Thread starter rikdogguk
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I don't think that it's a contentious enough topic on Wikipedia for someone to have edited it to be untrue.
Why are you believing one "own web site" and disbelieving another? (LinkedIn)
What does the ESC do?
Why are you believing one "own web site" and disbelieving another? (LinkedIn)
What does the ESC do?
An unfortunate choice of words or just a mistake?
Because, obviously, if I had my own website written by me, it would be accurate - unlike a Wikipedia article someone else had written about me which may not be.
I have no access to Linkedin (not a capital i) which, before I knew, I presumed was a Swedish site.
I don't know. Perhaps it's a loophole to maintain charity status.
Businesses are these days a series of multi-layered ownerships.
Neither Lady Green (herself) nor Taveta Investments (itself) appear to have their own websites but Arcadia Group does, so what do Lady Green and Taveta Investments do?
I stand by my comments!
Sponsored Links
Err... neither.
True.
And how foolish of me to have thought for even a second that a business or a campaigning charity would never look at the article about them on Wikipedia, but not written by them or anybody associated with them, to check that it didn't contain errors. Why on earth would anybody ever do that? What would be the point? What harm could come to any organisation from lies or mistakes written on a website viewed by 500 million different people each month? Any organisation with an article about them which was written by someone unconnected to them would be barking mad to bother ever checking it.
- You can see that page without being a member.
- I hope you aren't thinking that I may have falsified the screenshot.
Why would a commercial company which was not a charity need to pretend to exist in order to maintain charity status for a different organisation?
IHNI.
But with no websites of their own, with what might be a website of their own redirecting to ESF, with searches for ESC returning hits for ESF, with site after site saying that ESC became ESF, or ESF was formerly ESC, and with no evidence that ESC do anything, then if it is a multilayered ownership loophole then the ESC are ESF.
Of course you do. I would expect nothing more.
And it should be no other way, for if we cannot rely on you to not have a clue, and to be unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality, what is the point of you being here?
Oh - and can anybody explain why this was so "100% wrong", and why it being wrong was of such vital significance to the topic that people like Risteard were fully justified in starting an argument, insulting me, etc?
Of course not. Why would you say that?
As for the 'i', apologies. It does seem to vary.
When I first encountered it, I thought it one word.
IHNI.
I think you are splitting hairs.
When I thought of a name for my business - XYZ electrics,
Did I become XYZ and/or was I XYZ? Either way, I was still me.
Changing tack slightly, I would like to know why electricians can't be sanctioned (and ultimately struck off) by NAPIT/NICEIC/etc for producing a report as poor as this ? As is obvious, the greed involved could easily have prevented a house sale and/or made a significant difference to its sale price.
Surely, the errors here could be spotted by a paper based exercise which would cost very little. However, even if a complaint warrants a site inspection, surely there ought to be a reasonably priced route for customers to take. And if the inspection bares out the customer's complaint, then the offending electrician pays for it......
Edit: Ooops - its an old thread. Oh well.....
Surely, the errors here could be spotted by a paper based exercise which would cost very little. However, even if a complaint warrants a site inspection, surely there ought to be a reasonably priced route for customers to take. And if the inspection bares out the customer's complaint, then the offending electrician pays for it......
Edit: Ooops - its an old thread. Oh well.....
NICEIC / NAPIT are not the IET.
The only way to resolve what you are suggesting is to do like the Germans and have 3 separate electricians sign off work (one typically designs, one installs and one tests) and then after they are all responsible for it collectively. It very quickly weeds out unscrupulous sparks.
The only way to resolve what you are suggesting is to do like the Germans and have 3 separate electricians sign off work (one typically designs, one installs and one tests) and then after they are all responsible for it collectively. It very quickly weeds out unscrupulous sparks.
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 25,314
- Reaction score
- 2,959
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
An EICR has always been the opinion of the guy doing the inspection. There are some hard and fast rules, like not being able to touch live parts, and we have a standard finger of 12.5 mm, so any hole larger than 12.5 mm allowing one to touch live parts is a clear code C1, and anything coving the hole except for ceiling roses, needs the use of a tool or key to get access.
Access from above normally considered to be smaller, but then we start to move into the inspectors opinion. If the inspector never uses code C2 (potentially dangerous) and codes either C1 (dangerous) or C3 (improvement recommended) he has not broken any rules. As long as he lists the faults, he has done his job.
And as far as scheme membership goes, the EICR is often outside the scope of his membership.
For this reason when using the LABC they will give you a selection of trusted inspectors, you can't just use anyone, and in the main they instruct the inspector not you, even if you pay for it, as he is instructed to as far as possible complete the EICR as if it were an EIC, and to report all deviations from the current BS7671 assuming date of design to be present date.
When I was working my workshop was safe for me to work in, but it was not safe for non instructed personal to enter, so what may be accepted in one building may not be acceptable in another, 230 volt is always potentially dangerous so seems no point having that code, what it means to my mind is potentially dangerous for the type of use the building is likely to have, which in the main means not knocking nails in the wall within safe zones.
One can't protect an idiot, whatever you do, they will find a way around it. But placing consumer units out of the reach of toddlers, seems a basic common sense measure, yet I know many are installed under the stairs, some times without any door. Yet that is seldom considered as potentially dangerous, not a clue why, likely tradition same as ceiling roses not needing a tool, and lights suspended not needing an earth.
As a child I remember the record player deck resting on a hole on springs, which could be simply lifted up exposing live contacts, but I was simply not allowed to play with the record player, I was also not allowed to play with the fire, or the tools for the fire. Were they potentially dangerous, well no, my mother would smack me if I went near, she did not need to smack me, threat was enough, but that has gone today, can't smack a child, I could not help but laugh when a mother threatened to take the child to England where it seems they can be smacked.
Access from above normally considered to be smaller, but then we start to move into the inspectors opinion. If the inspector never uses code C2 (potentially dangerous) and codes either C1 (dangerous) or C3 (improvement recommended) he has not broken any rules. As long as he lists the faults, he has done his job.
And as far as scheme membership goes, the EICR is often outside the scope of his membership.
For this reason when using the LABC they will give you a selection of trusted inspectors, you can't just use anyone, and in the main they instruct the inspector not you, even if you pay for it, as he is instructed to as far as possible complete the EICR as if it were an EIC, and to report all deviations from the current BS7671 assuming date of design to be present date.
When I was working my workshop was safe for me to work in, but it was not safe for non instructed personal to enter, so what may be accepted in one building may not be acceptable in another, 230 volt is always potentially dangerous so seems no point having that code, what it means to my mind is potentially dangerous for the type of use the building is likely to have, which in the main means not knocking nails in the wall within safe zones.
One can't protect an idiot, whatever you do, they will find a way around it. But placing consumer units out of the reach of toddlers, seems a basic common sense measure, yet I know many are installed under the stairs, some times without any door. Yet that is seldom considered as potentially dangerous, not a clue why, likely tradition same as ceiling roses not needing a tool, and lights suspended not needing an earth.
As a child I remember the record player deck resting on a hole on springs, which could be simply lifted up exposing live contacts, but I was simply not allowed to play with the record player, I was also not allowed to play with the fire, or the tools for the fire. Were they potentially dangerous, well no, my mother would smack me if I went near, she did not need to smack me, threat was enough, but that has gone today, can't smack a child, I could not help but laugh when a mother threatened to take the child to England where it seems they can be smacked.
On the other hand; never assume those in charge know what they are doing.
The guys on the NICEIC list have to agree to work with the guidelines of the coding in the ESC leaflet - they pay to be on their listing.
There is no obligation to be registered with any body and actually no requirements for qualifications BUT you need to be able to demonstrate competence
I use the ESC guidance but I’m not registered with a rip off body.
I regularly get asked for my opinions on poor EICRs
Go figure
If I was going to make an improvement I would say minimum 10 years hands on experience before you can do EICRs
There is no obligation to be registered with any body and actually no requirements for qualifications BUT you need to be able to demonstrate competence
I use the ESC guidance but I’m not registered with a rip off body.
I regularly get asked for my opinions on poor EICRs
Go figure
If I was going to make an improvement I would say minimum 10 years hands on experience before you can do EICRs
Actually they are so far removed from the coal face they simply don’t have a clue
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
