EICR Certificate

[startingtopuff]

Hi,

I recently requested a report on my domestic Installation. Some of the wiring dates back to the late '60's when the house was built. The assessment has been marked as Satisfactory but on reading further I was surprised to learn that an insulation test wasn't carried out for the following reasons "Property is occupied and items vulnerable to testing" I also note that the testing equipment used for Earth Fault Impedence, Continuity & Insulation Resistance  has not been specified although there is a serial number in the MFT panel. I would have thought insulation resistance would be extremely important given the age of the wiring. Am I being paranoid?

 

[Murdoch]

Hi,

I recently requested a report on my domestic Installation. Some of the wiring dates back to the late '60's when the house was built. The assessment has been marked as Satisfactory but on reading further I was surprised to learn that an insulation test wasn't carried out for the following reasons "Property is occupied and items vulnerable to testing" I also note that the testing equipment used for Earth Fault Impedence, Continuity & Insulation Resistance  has not been specified although there is a serial number in the MFT panel. I would have thought insulation resistance would be extremely important given the age of the wiring. Am I being paranoid?

Sounds like you've been taken for a ride

Who appointed the spark to do the test?

Have you paid for the report

 

[Phoenix]

I would have liked to see insulation resistance done, even if it was at 250v and its taken as a given that it'll be L and N strapped together and tested to earth, with the value between L-N marked as LIM. I can see why he is cautious though, it is easy to get blamed for blowing up sensitive equipment, as sometimes things that have been powered off fail to come back on, and its all too quick to say "The electrician killed it with the megger" but

- It takes what? no more than 15mins to unplug everything even in a large property, if you can say honesty an item was unplugged at the time, you can be sure you didn't damage it.

- Testing Live and Neutral tied together to earth should not damage anything

- Testing at 250v shouldn't damage anything, even if its accidentally applied L-N accidentally (such as incoorectly connected eqipment, or a fault causing the test voltage to appear L-N) but will show up thats something is not ok

To summerise, its reasonably safe to do the test, with everything you can find unplugged, L&N strapped together to earth and test at 250v, either then declare that as a limitation, or provided the figure at 250v is ok, then repeat at 500v provided you are sure you havent left the expensive TV connected.... just incase

The Issue with the serial number is not a problem, hes obviously used an all in one instrument (A multi-Function tester) and where there is a box for that, its not necessary to state its serial number for each function it has.

 

[binky]

Insulation testing is rather important, especially on cables of that age.

 

[phil d]

Did he leave his horse loose on your lawn, or tie it to something? How anyone can say they've done an EICR without IR testing is beyond me, it's a basic and very fundamental test.not doing it is a bit like taking a car to a garage and the mechanic telling you your brakes need replacing, just by standind and looking at the car from a distance. As others have said, just because a property is lived in is no excuse to not do these tests, sadly it wouldn't be the first time I've heard of this. I had one recently and most of the boxes for IR values and earth loop values were marked LIM, basically rendering the exercise useless!

I'd be doing a couple of things in this case, 1) If the person carrying out the test was a member of a scheme, I'd be reporting them to the scheme, and 2) I'd be getting the testing done by someone who actually knows what they are doing.

 

[kerching]

I'd be doing a couple of things in this case, 1) If the person carrying out the test was a member of a scheme, I'd be reporting them to the scheme, and

Let me quantify this for you by way of an illustrative practical experimemt

take a 5 gallon container

fill it 2/3 full,with warm water

roll,up,your right sleeve

put elbow in said water for 10 seconds

remove elbow

the size of the hole left in the water is directionally proportional to how much the scheme provider will care

HOWEVER if they claim to be a scheme member and have fibbed then brace yourself

 

[Rob.]

How much did you pay for the EICR. In cases like this (not always) cheapest quote, is usually the cheapest for a reason. You get the bare minimum. 

 

[Murdoch]

How much did you pay for the EICR. In cases like this (not always) cheapest quote, is usually the cheapest for a reason. You get the bare minimum. 

hit, nail and head

cheapest EICR normally equals highest number of C2’s AND highest quotes for remedial in my experience

 

[Phoenix]

hit, nail and head

cheapest EICR normally equals highest number of C2’s AND highest quotes for remedial in my experience

It can go either way, either they try and make money back on a loss leader EICR with remedial works, or its not a loss leader at all, and might as well have a serial number for a crystal ball rather than a test kit. You dont get anything for nothing and if it looks too cheap, either you arn't getting much, or will be stung for extras.

 

[phil d]

Let me quantify this for you by way of an illustrative practical experimemt

take a 5 gallon container

fill it 2/3 full,with warm water

roll,up,your right sleeve

put elbow in said water for 10 seconds

remove elbow

the size of the hole left in the water is directionally proportional to how much the scheme provider will care

HOWEVER if they claim to be a scheme member and have fibbed then brace yourself

We know this, but I'm trying to be optimistic, one day they may do something, one day, lol

 

[Sidewinder]

It depends on the scheme provider and the pressure brought to bear on senior management and by whom...

 

[Murdoch]

The EICR's will from now on continue to be a total farce - fueled by Napits Codebreakers  - which people use to justify incorrect coding.

 

[Sidewinder]

The EICR's will from now on continue to be a total farce - fueled by Napits Codebreakers  - which people use to justify incorrect coding.

You can't blame NAPIT for incorrect use of the book, in the same vein that you can't blame the IET because muppets can't read BS 7671.

 

[Phoenix]

The EICR's will from now on continue to be a total farce - fueled by Napits Codebreakers  - which people use to justify incorrect coding.

I must admit I've only quickly glanced through through it, and I am aware of their strange opinion on what code concealed cables without 30mA RCD should be, but are there any others which are 'immediatly wrong' in there, I cant recall noting any others but like I said, only a very quick look

The problem is that EICR coding is (and needs to be) to the chap on site's opinion*, if you or I disagreee with him, then at at point is a difference of opinion. If however the whole forum disagree with him, then hes got a minority view amongst his peers and very likely to be wrong (or  has not discribed the actual situation well enough - either way it needs some adjustment to part of the report)

*Rigid rules don't always fit, sometimes there is something on site that changes the situation somewhat, and you need to be cable to go along the lines of 'this is normally a code xxx but in here its less of an issue than if it were somewhere else' or conversly more of a problem than elsewhere.

 

[Murdoch]

You can't blame NAPIT for incorrect use of the book, in the same vein that you 

yes you can . People take the guidance as gospel ....

We’ve discussed this before and as you are named inside said document I think it needs updating and revising PLUS clarifications put on the Napit site too

 

[Sidewinder]

yes you can . People take the guidance as gospel ....

We’ve discussed this before and as you are named inside said document I think it needs updating and revising PLUS clarifications put on the Napit site too

The introduction to the document states that the codes are simply suggestions.

Yes I was part of the panel that generated the codes but, that doesn’t mean that I agree with every single one.

There were many and it was the majority that won the vote.

 

[Murdoch]

There were many and it was the majority that won the vote.

that probably says a lot about the out of touch people making decisions .....that they shouldn’t be 

 

[binky]

that probably says a lot about the out of touch people making decisions .....that they shouldn’t be 

I wouldn't mind, but it seems 'whoever' bar Sidey, tends not to listen to feedback from the likes of you and me, and so encourages more 'I'll do it my way' attitude? 

 

[Murdoch]

I wouldn't mind, but it seems 'whoever' bar Sidey, tends not to listen to feedback from the likes of you and me, and so encourages more 'I'll do it my way' attitude? 

what has got my goat is Napit has published a guide with some really bad guidance in it, and they seem to have their heads buried in the sand, simply are not accountable to anybody and and don’t care

what is worse is that they are also credited on the Electrical Safety Council Best Practice Guide No 4, issue 5, which differs from their own code breakers book.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised given all the errors in BS 7671

in our local town a 5 year old block of flats are seeing all EICRs fail - why FFS!

 

[UNG]

the size of the hole left in the water is directionally proportional to how much the scheme provider will care

HOWEVER if they claim to be a scheme member and have fibbed then brace yourself

It has been said many times that the schemes have little interest in complaints that may directly affect their revenue stream

It would be interesting to see how UKAS would react to a complaint about one of their accredited bodies

The EICR's will from now on continue to be a total farce - fueled by Napits Codebreakers  - which people use to justify incorrect coding.

The only reason NAPIT's codebreakers ever saw the light of day IMO was to support the growing band of short course 2391 qualified personnel who believe they can hit the ground running knocking poor quality EICR's

You can't blame NAPIT for incorrect use of the book, in the same vein that you can't blame the IET because muppets can't read BS 7671.

Why did NAPIT ever see a need for it other than the revenue it produces, with the price of BS7671 I doubt the muppets even buy it

The problem is that EICR coding is (and needs to be) to the chap on site's opinion*, if you or I disagreee with him, then at at point is a difference of opinion. If however the whole forum disagree with him, then hes got a minority view amongst his peers and very likely to be wrong (or  has not discribed the actual situation well enough - either way it needs some adjustment to part of the report)

*Rigid rules don't always fit, sometimes there is something on site that changes the situation somewhat, and you need to be cable to go along the lines of 'this is normally a code xxx but in here its less of an issue than if it were somewhere else' or conversly more of a problem than elsewhere.

And if you can't make that decision then you are probably not competent to carry out an EICR

yes you can . People take the guidance as gospel ....

We’ve discussed this before and as you are named inside said document I think it needs updating and revising PLUS clarifications put on the Napit site too

The document does not need updating it needs to be discontinued it serves no useful purpose other than creating thread and discussion opportunities on forums

The introduction to the document states that the codes are simply suggestions.

Yes I was part of the panel that generated the codes but, that doesn’t mean that I agree with every single one.

There were many and it was the majority that won the vote.

So the introduction actually states it's uselessness

I personally would not own up to being associated with the production of this totally needless document

How many people would you suggest to carry out an EICR by committee although there are a lot who consult the forum for the casting opinion on their EICR's

what has got my goat is Napit has published a guide with some really bad guidance in it, and they seem to have their heads buried in the sand, simply are not accountable to anybody and and don’t care

what is worse is that they are also credited on the Electrical Safety Council Best Practice Guide No 4, issue 5, which differs from their own code breakers book.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised given all the errors in BS 7671

in our local town a 5 year old block of flats are seeing all EICRs fail - why FFS!

And that says all we need to know about NAPIT codebreakers. I can think of quite a lot of ways of spending 20 quid and NAPIT's book isn't one of them