EICR Unsatisfactory - need advice

[ColleyCibber]

PS I would say that a supplier's neutral that can stop being the neutral because there's a fuse that can blow is an important characteristic of a supply. 

 

[Andy™]

We need to be clear in our thinking here. There are two entirely separate points :-

1. Is the network operator supply within the scope of the report in terms of being able to FI?

2. If so, is a suspected possible fused neutral in the supply head legitimate FI?

I'm open to having a discussion about 2. but it's difficult to see any merit in discussing 1. when BPG4 categorically answers it Yes. I'm not likely to be persuaded that, rather than code based on BPG4, I should code based on the word of some bloke on the Internet who says BPG4 is part of an NICEIC conspiracy.

1: 7671 specifically excludes DNO equipment within its scope. that trumps what any 'guidance' says

2: again, i would call DNO to deal with it and make a note but it wouldnt get an unsatisfactory report just because of it

 

[ColleyCibber]

No you don't pretend anything - you complete the EICR within the scope of the INSTALLATION - i.e downstream of the meter and I would comment on anything that would appear dangerous about the incoming supply.

A couple of years ago I did a CU change - the metre tails were old and fabric covered, and they were in a poor state. I duly fitted an isolator with shiny new 25mm tails to my board and advised the client to ring the supplier - which he did and they said ................... they weren't concerned about the state of "their" tails.. So in this instance you "ColleyCibber" would give an unsatisfactory and the supplier wouldn't fix it - what would you do then?

As far as I'm concerned its another fine mess the IET and others have got us into.  We have to apply some common sense - which to me is don't give an "unsatisfactory" to an aspect of the installation which I or another general spark can't rectify.

If you have put that as the agreed scope of your reporting then fine - don't see how you could argue that it gives a complete holistic view on the safety of the installation in use, but fine. But if not then BPG4 makes it clear that it's in scope and FI-able and I for one am not going to ignore that.

What would I do? Ideally get it in writing/email from the supplier that they were content with their tails (or at least record who said it and when) and then (if required) declare Satisfactory with an appropriate backside-covering comment referring to that evidence - because the issue has been resolved as not dangerous, because it is not for me to reject the authority of the DNO to speak authoritatively about their own kit. 

My common sense is don't sign off as no-scope-for-danger an installation where you know taken as a whole there might be some. 

I don't see why you're so hung up on whether or not you or any other sparky can fix it, what's that got to do with it? If you had to inspect a bridge over a gorge and your remit to fix it stopped where the supports enter the cliff face, but you had serious doubts that the cliff face was sound, would you sign it off as satisfactory?

 

[Andy™]

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree then, I think!

I totally get where you are coming from, & I'll give you that one.

i agree with him too - U is line to line, if you only have SP then you dont have line to line voltage so NA would be appropriate, with 230v in Uo

 

[ProDave]

This thread just highlights what a mess the regulations are.

A simple "solution" might be to agree with the customer that the scope of the eicr is "only equipment downstream of the electricity meter" then we no longer have to code a supply head defect as it's outside the scope of the report.  We can still note it, and notify the DNO to fix it, but now, being outside the scope of what we are reporting, will not prevent us declaring "satisfactory"
 

 

[ColleyCibber]

1: 7671 specifically excludes DNO equipment within its scope. that trumps what any 'guidance' says

2: again, i would call DNO to deal with it and make a note but it wouldnt get an unsatisfactory report just because of it

Okay, well I respect your position on 1. But hopefully you can see why, in the face of the BPG4 guidance and the 1.1-1.6 boxes on the Condition Report Inspection Schedule, I differ?

What would you do with your report in the meantime if the DNO dragged their heels endlessly about something in the supply head which you told them about and which, if it had been part of the installation, you would have C2ed or FIed?

 

[ColleyCibber]

What would you do with your report in the meantime if the DNO dragged their heels endlessly about something in the supply head which you told them about and which, if it had been part of the installation, you would have C2ed or FIed?

PS Assume you're absolutely broke, the client won't pay until you put the report in, and the only way there's going to be presents under the tree and a turkey on the dinner table is if they've paid you.

 

[Andy™]

as ive said many times, and you seen unable to understand, any DNO issues would be noted but they would not be given a code as its not covered by 7671

 

[ColleyCibber]

as ive said many times, and you seen unable to understand, any DNO issues would be noted but they would not be given a code as its not covered by 7671

No, I understand that. I just want to see whether you'll stand on that position to the point of signing off as satisfactory within your scope an installation that you know taken as a whole is potentially dangerous. Bearing in mind that the recipient may not read anything other than the line that says SATISFACTORY*/ UNSATISFACTORY* (*delete one).

 

[Murdoch]

I don't see why you're so hung up on whether or not you or any other sparky can fix it, what's that got to do with it? If you had to inspect a bridge over a gorge and your remit to fix it stopped where the supports enter the cliff face, but you had serious doubts that the cliff face was sound, would you sign it off as satisfactory?

Its VERY simple. You issue an unsatisfactory because of something you perceive is wrong with the DNO equipment. The DNO may or may not agree. The client is left with an unsatisfactory report and a house sale may well fall though because of your intransigence?

For me the sensible answer would be to issue a satisfactory and cover off in the comments section the perceived issues with the DNO equipment...

I sense this will go round and round in circles all because of the perceived ambuguity of the rules and guidance issued by the IET and others. For me 110.2 needs to be spelt out in more words and NOT contradicted by other documents.....

 

[Andy™]

No, I understand that. I just want to see whether you'll stand on that position to the point of signing off as satisfactory within your scope an installation that you know taken as a whole is potentially dangerous..

what part of DNO equipment is not within the scope of 7671 as specified in 7671 are you having the difficulty in understanding?

if its not within the scope of 7671 then you cannot test it to 7671

next you will be condemning the rail network for having that dangerous 25kv overhead live wire exposed. 7671 wouldnt allow that. rail stuff is excluded but that doesnt seem to bother you anyway

 

[ColleyCibber]

Its VERY simple. You issue an unsatisfactory because of something you perceive is wrong with the DNO equipment. The DNO may or may not agree. The client is left with an unsatisfactory report and a house sale may well fall though because of your intransigence?

If the DNO says "You're right, it's iffy", then to me it's right to flag as Unsatisfactory until such time as resolved because, well, it is, - until resolved there should not be a report going to a buyer that suggests all is well with the electrics of their intended home when all is not well (duty of care, liability, etc.). I don't regard a report that scopes out the DNO supply as fit for that purpose. 

If the DNO says "Shut up, it's fine", you accept that and call it satisfactory.

I agree it becomes a mire if the DNO is slow to respond and one may have to fudge. How I'm not sure. 

 

[Murdoch]

If you have put that as the agreed scope of your reporting then fine - don't see how you could argue that it gives a complete holistic view on the safety of the installation in use, but fine. But if not then BPG4 makes it clear that it's in scope and FI-able and I for one am not going to ignore that.

BS 7671 AMD 3 trumps the BPG4 IMHO

If the DNO says "You're right, it's iffy", then to me it's right to flag as Unsatisfactory until such time as resolved because, well, it is, - until resolved there should not be a report going to a buyer that suggests all is well with the electrics of their intended home when all is not well (duty of care, liability, etc.). I don't regard a report that scopes out the DNO supply as fit for that purpose. 

Disagree.

How many EICR's have you done?

 

[ColleyCibber]

what part of DNO equipment is not within the scope of 7671 as specified in 7671 are you having the difficulty in understanding?

if its not within the scope of 7671 then you cannot test it to 7671

next you will be condemning the rail network for having that dangerous 25kv overhead live wire exposed. 7671 wouldnt allow that. rail stuff is excluded but that doesnt seem to bother you anyway

I think my difficulty is with the bit of 7671 that says it's within scope because intake equipment including service head and cable requires inspection on an EICR. p419. 

As has been pointed out there is no one unambiguous answer, 7671 appears internally inconsistent with itself, and one could go round in circles on this all night. 

 

[Andy™]

 7671 appears internally inconsistent with itself

nothing new there

 

[ColleyCibber]

Disagree.

How many EICR's have you done?

So I gather, and with respect mind your own business   

 

[Murdoch]

I think my difficulty is with the bit of 7671 that says it's within scope because intake equipment including service head and cable requires inspection on an EICR. p419. 

In my copy of BS 7671 P419 its entitled "Examples of items requiring inspection during initial verification" - so not EICR's then.

So on to P427

1. Section 1.0 Where inadequacies in the distributors equipment are encountered the inspector should advise the person ordering the work to inform the appropriate authority.

 

[ColleyCibber]

In my copy of BS 7671 P419 its entitled "Examples of items requiring inspection during initial verification" - so not EICR's then.

Sorry, well spotted, it's p.428 that says the same thing for EICRs. Yes it says where inadequacies are encountered it is recommended the person ordering the report informs the appropriate authority - it doesn't say do this instead of recording an outcome on the Inspection Schedule 1.1-1.6.

 

[Murdoch]

Sorry, well spotted, it's p.428 that says the same thing for EICRs.

See my edited post above.

Sorry, well spotted, it's p.428 that says the same thing for EICRs. Yes it says where inadequacies are encountered it is recommended the person ordering the report informs the appropriate authority - it doesn't say do this instead of recording an outcome on the Inspection Schedule 1.1-1.6.

Hum.... I think it says PRECISELY that.

 

[Sidewinder]

I think my difficulty is with the bit of 7671 that says it's within scope because intake equipment including service head and cable requires inspection on an EICR. p419. 

As has been pointed out there is no one unambiguous answer, 7671 appears internally inconsistent with itself, and one could go round in circles on this all night. 

The trouble is it doesn't say it's within its scope.

BS7671 excludes DNO equipment under reg 110.2 i.

It then goes on to require checking of the equipment for both an EIC & ECIR in a subsequent informative appendix.

Page numbers from BS7671 are a pain, because the are not in/on my copy!!!

Yes I have a legitimate copy and yes I have, and am taking it up with the IET.

I think that pg 419 is in Appendix 6 which is "informative" NOT "normative" thus it does NOT form part of the British Standard which has to be complied with, it is for additional information only.

i.e. it is guidance.

So, whilst it is there, and yes it is part of the requirements of the forms, it does not form part of the standard.

There is no definitive answer.

There will be scenarios where access to the DNO equipment is not possible, so it would have to be a LIM on an EICR.

I never get issues with getting the DNO to attend to any issues I find, and as I would look at the head immediately upon getting to the job, if accessible, and if it exists, not all supplies terminate in what you see in a domestic premises as a "Lucy" type cutout.

So just using that as an example, IF is attended site, I would look at the DNO kit immediately and if I was unhappy make the call there and then on behalf of the customer.

With the MPAN if possible.

That way, the DNO would be out before I finished my work, because it would be an emergency call, as there is a potential dangerous situation with their equipment, normally within the hour, and I don't think it would be possible to correctly do any full premise EICR in <1hr if it is to be meaningful.

Would I code an ECIR as satisfactory if I felt there were issues with the DNO kit, perhaps, it depends on what those issues were.

As I say, I almost always call any DNO kit faults in immediately on attending.

So, I never have an issue.

Would I code an EICR as unsatisfactory with issues on the DNO kit, again it depends.

TBH, I would probably LIM the DNO kit, issue a satisfactory to the client, and EDN the DNO kit via email directly from site & CC the client with a justification to both, if I could not get the issue resolved by the time I left, if the rest of the install was OK.

OK, see why it's not good not having page numbers in your copy of BS7671!!!  X(