EICR Unsatisfactory - need advice

[steptoe]

Who's ridiculous idea was it anyway that we should be coding the services,?

Sure, comment on the condition, but should we really be coding it,?

As @Murdoch says, we have no control over it and cannot make it right.

 

[Sharpend]

Perhaps for a fee we could forward a copy of the report of the incoming services to the responsible people for them to action.....................

Sorry Mr J Daniels has been visiting tonight!! 

 

[ColleyCibber]

Who's ridiculous idea was it anyway that we should be coding the services,?

Sure, comment on the condition, but should we really be coding it,?

As @Murdoch says, we have no control over it and cannot make it right.

Then why are boxes 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 on the Condition Report Inspection Schedule, if not to be filled in? FI is about whether there may be immediate/potential danger, and if there's danger, then there's danger and you report it, doesn't matter whether it's down to you to fix or someone else?

The bit which says the EICR can be unsatisfactory because of the service head. A part a spark has zero control over. 

AND the report could be for the installation downstream of the meter!

So you don't think C1/C2/C3/FI is a valid entry in (say) box 1.2, "Condition of service head" of the Condition Report Inspection Schedule, is that your meaning?

 

[Murdoch]

The IET have a lot to answer for. Blxxdy ridiculous situation.

The service head should only be commented on.....

 

[ColleyCibber]

The IET have a lot to answer for. Blxxdy ridiculous situation.

The service head should only be commented on.....

Very possibly. Do you not think C1/C2/C3/FI is a valid entry on box 1.2? Looking at the bigger picture here, if that is a fused neutral, has it got scope to make the installation dangerous, well, yes. All your neutrals going live is not a good place to be. 

 

[ProDave]

1.1 to 1.6 are all about the CONDITION of the supply.  To me looking at that picture, the CONDITION of the supply head looks fine. It makes no mention about whether it MAY have a fused neutral.

So why code it?

Surely what we are loking for is damaged heads, exposed live parts, broken bits that might fall off and expose live parts, damaged or loose cables etc, not something theoretical that may or may not be inside an enclosure that we are not responsible for and are not supposed to be messing with in any event?

 

 

[ColleyCibber]

1.1 to 1.6 are all about the CONDITION of the supply.  To me looking at that picture, the CONDITION of the supply head looks fine. It makes no mention about whether it MAY have a fused neutral.

So why code it?
 

Depends what we mean by condition, doesn't it? It doesn't have to be taken to mean "Smashed or not smashed", it could means its overall state.

What I am drawn to is the question of whether the inspector has "revealed an apparent deficiency" or not (Notes for person producing report, point 9). Being worried about the possibility of a deficiency is not the same as revealing an apparent one.

 

[steptoe]

Good point @ProDave

Next thing we will be commenting on the fact you may have a rodent problem, that may eat the cables,

is that UNSATISFACTORY    ?  

 

[Murdoch]

I'm not sure I agree. If you code  it c1 or c2 will the dno issue a satisfactory report?

As the inspector you have to use common sense

 

[Rob_the_rich]

Sidewinder is correct, an FI is a code in its own right and results in an unsatisfactory, see Notes on the condition report, point 9, 17th Ed 3rd Amendment p426

See also Schedule Of Inspections item no 1.2, "Condition of service head", inspection where possible is a required item and codable.

Hi ColleyCibber (Brighton Rock?), I don't do eicrs, the notes on p426 refer to a situation where a code C1 or C2 might be given after further investigation. AFAIK, no code can be given for the distributor's equipment, as it does not fall under bs7671. To classify the whole consumer's installation as unsatisfactory because you suspect there may be a fused neutral because of the shape of the box does not seem to me to be using common sense. Fair enough that the sparky did not want to open the box, that is understandable.

Would we be in a situation where the cut out seals are in place, it says 60A bs1361 on the fuse carrier, but we haven't seen the actual fuse, it might be 100A on 16mm tails, so F1 and unsatisfactory?

 

[ColleyCibber]

Surely what we are loking for is damaged heads, exposed live parts, broken bits that might fall off and expose live parts, damaged or loose cables etc, not something theoretical that may or may not be inside an enclosure that we are not responsible for and are not supposed to be messing with in any event?

Which sort of tallies with my point, I think? - call an apparent deficiency that you've revealed an apparent deficiency, but it needs to be apparent ("seeming real or true, but not necessarily so").

 

[J Gough]

So - we've had some guys from UK Power Networks come out and examine the equipment, we don't have a fused Neutral so it's all, all good.  They had to smash up the casing to find out, but then fitted a new modern one.  So all sorted now!

The reason the electrician put it down as FI was because he was unsure, so phoned his Part P body for advice.  They told him he needed to put FI - so he did.  Wasn't actually his choice in the end.

Anyway, it's been a bit of a crazy ride the last few days.  Glad to get this sorted.  Thanks once again for all of your help, advice and just generally being awesome!

 

[J Gough]

I spotted one he missed, no 'safety electrical connection'  label on the main earth terminal.

That's down as a C3 on my new report   A lot of stuff on the new report that the other guy missed really.

 

[Murdoch]

So - we've had some guys from UK Power Networks come out and examine the equipment, we don't have a fused Neutral so it's all, all good.  They had to smash up the casing to find out, but then fitted a new modern one.  So all sorted now!

The reason the electrician put it down as FI was because he was unsure, so phoned his Part P body for advice.  They told him he needed to put FI - so he did.  Wasn't actually his choice in the end.

Anyway, it's been a bit of a crazy ride the last few days.  Glad to get this sorted.  Thanks once again for all of your help, advice and just generally being awesome!

So UKPN came out late last night? Seriously impressed they did that...

 

[ProDave]

So do we take it the EICR has now been ammended to "satisfactory" with just a few C3's?  If so that's the result you want.

Well impressed at the DNO turning out that quick. I guess he reported it to them as a "dangerous condition" that's normally the only way to get them out so quick.
 

 

[Sidewinder]

Potential fused N is a dangerous condition, especially as the cut out fuse carrier was stuck in place.

So it will warrant an emergency call.

 

[J Gough]

Yes, he amended it to "satisfactory" with a few C3s.

 

[Evans Electric]

So - we've had some guys from UK Power Networks come out and examine the equipment, we don't have a fused Neutral so it's all, all good.  They had to smash up the casing to find out, but then fitted a new modern one.  So all sorted now!

The reason the electrician put it down as FI was because he was unsure, so phoned his Part P body for advice.  They told him he needed to put FI - so he did.  Wasn't actually his choice in the end.

Anyway, it's been a bit of a crazy ride the last few days.  Glad to get this sorted.  Thanks once again for all of your help, advice and just generally being awesome!

its a pleasure  and nice to be appreciated   ( On behalf of the Forum)     

Who was that guy the other day  who thought we were a bunch of arrogant , disagreeable so & so,s  and stormed off to another Forum ....this is how we work. !!!  

 

[Sharpend]

Concur with our deke :Applaud  

 

[Murdoch]

Top marks to the OP for keeping this on the straight and narrow and answering points and questions in a constructive manner - lots of people don't, let alone update the forum as and when its sorted.