Makes my blood boil

[Murdoch]

We've covered the thorny subject of poor EICR's on several occasions but this dropped into my inbox today



1. smoke alarms - why?

2. Outer sleeving of meter tails cut back too fan INSIDE CU?

3. Since when did meter tails have to be 25mm irrespective of DNO fuse size? 

7. Surely this is a C2 or no comment as I can't remember a change in regs that would cover this!

I suspect this is a case of somebody using Code Busters and not their brain.

 

[Fly Moose]

I do agree with you on all counts. 

The use of using 18th to do work on peoples houses is ridiculous when basic condition is clearly okay and electric supply and accessorise are in good working condition.

Im sick of electricians all wanting to change - PVC DB or not PVC DB regs says it has to be Metal. Its a boiling moment, but lucky some electricians are learning to read forums like this.

 

[Murdoch]

I publish these so landlords see them .....

and fingers crossed the CPSs too - this was a NAPIT member

 

[Sharpend]

I’m more stunned that not having interlinked smoke alarms is considered more dangerous than exposed copper in the fuse box given the number of people who think it’s fine to open up a fuse box. !! 

 

[Murdoch]

I’m more stunned that not having interlinked smoke alarms is considered more dangerous than exposed copper in the fuse box given the number of people who think it’s fine to open up a fuse box. !! 

It’s not even exposed copper if you read the comment again

bearing in mind tails are double insulated, the inspector is suggesting the outer sheath is cut back too far FFS

 

[Sharpend]

Well that’s open to interpretation, yes tails are double insulated but is the inspector an inspector or a fake inspector? 

 

[Murdoch]

Well, who knows

the EICR confirms the DNO fuse to be 60A and the tails 16mm yet a C3 is given

 

[UNG]

I publish these so landlords see them .....

and fingers crossed the CPSs too - this was a NAPIT member

I would like to think UKAS are looking too, if the CPS's can't run their show properly then UKAS are the people who need to be asking questions as to why they can't and if they have to they must withdraw their authority to operate as an inspection body

EICR quality is a clear failing of the industry currently, when has NAPIT or the NICEIC ever checked any companies or any individuals ability to carry out an EICR to the or a required standard.

The 2391, 2394 / 2395 qualifications really have no value as a qualification and haven't had for the last 15 years or more, a lot of colleges and training providers just blatantly coach people with little or no industry experience to pass the exam by feeding them past question papers

I was asked to comment on an EICR on the local church my wife goes to, I believe it took two guys 2 hours on site to do all the testing it resulted in 2 C2's , a lack o RCD protection which I would expect and their piece d' resistance 2 unswitched sockets on the aisle had no means of isolation on them so didn't comply with the regs. They totally missed about 10 other observations that were a mix of C2 and C3. Although to be fair the previous 2 or 3 EICR's also done by NICEIC contractors had missed things that were most certainly non compliant or needed attention at the time the EICR's were done

 

[Murdoch]

I would like to think UKAS are looking too, if the CPS's can't run their show properly then UKAS are the people who need to be asking questions as to why they can't and if they have to they must withdraw their authority to operate as an inspection body

The Government legislation is clear that scheme membership is not required for EICR's so they can't really be blamed BUT they are sitting on their hands and not doing anything to guide the industry or Joe Public

Napit Code Breakers has a lot to answer for

 

[binky]

I've just had a long discussion on smokes with a client. Hallways of some small purpose built flats. They had a fire risk assessment a few years ago and installed smokes and emergency lighting iaw the report. A EICR has condemnend smokes for not being interlinked, so I've been explaining that the fire risk assessment is what they need to comply with, not the opinion of an electrican. Likewise, there is nothing to say emergency lighting has to be on the same cct as the lights.

 

[boltonsparky]

Similarly to emergency lighting and fire alarms, smokes are out of scope as far as I'm concerned as they fall under a different british standard. If they're fitted the circuit gets inspected and tested for compliance with 7671, that's where it ends, their type/location/number of them or whatever isn't the concern of somebody there to carry out an EICR in my opinion. If there are no smokes at all, even battery ones, a recommendation is made to the owner but nothing on the cert, worst case it would warrant a note on the cert but certainly not a code.

Observation 5, badly worded, I didn't realise that the presence of the warning notice was an issue, I though it was the lack of the notice that was an issue.

Observation 4, badly worded again, you're giving it a C3 because you've confirmed the size of the MPBs, gas, water, oil, steel, anyones guess. 

Observation 6, fine if the spark doing the EICR is the one doing the remedials, if you're the person following on have you got to pull everything apart again to check which are and aren't identified correctly. 

Observation 7, suitable, not suitable and where? assumption would be in the bathroom due to the reg number given in the observation and that they/it aren't due to the C3 code but as mentioned above not really the correct code.

A bit of copy and paste from the inspection schedule instead of writing out a proper observation.

Observation 8, pedantic, but shouldn't it be CPC rather than earth. Could the owner dump a pile of soil in the bathroom and that would comply. 

Code breakers can't be blamed for the OP's pictured observations as they're not proper observations and the codes don't match up with code breakers on a fair few of them anyway, due to the poor observation writing it's impossible on some to compare codes as they haven't actually written what the issue is.

 

[Sidewinder]

"Meter tails" are not double insulated, they are insulated and sheathed.

Whilst the outer sheath may have insulating properties, by the nature of the material, however, the product standard does not specify an insulation requirement for this sheathing.

110.1.3 can place fire detection & em lighting within the scope of someone working to 7671 and thus within the scope of en EICR, exclusion of these should be an agreed limitation prior to the EICR.

560.9 requires em lighting to comply with 5266, 1838 etc

560.10 requires fire alarms to comply with 5839.

So it's not quite so cut and dried with regard to safety systems.

 

[Murdoch]

So it's not quite so cut and dried with regard to safety systems.

what is crystal clear is that an EICR can’t give a C2 for no smoke alarms in a flat

 

[UNG]

The Government legislation is clear that scheme membership is not required for EICR's so they can't really be blamed BUT they are sitting on their hands and not doing anything to guide the industry or Joe Public

Napit Code Breakers has a lot to answer for

That is the problem only parts of the government legislation are clear and in other parts it's very very unclear, exactly what level do you need to be at if doing EICR's outside a scheme and like the schemes how is it verified that the operative doing the EICR is at the required standard

General guidance that is peddled by the media is that using a contractor affiliated to the NICEIC wil give you some guarantee that the work is of an assessed standard yet an NICEIC annual assessment looks only at a few jobs whether you are a one man band or a company of 100 electricians

While some may not like it the training and examination system needs a massive shake up, the "I've only got a 2391 so I'm good to go on I&T and do EICR's" needs clamping down on if you can't meet the course entry requirements of a core qualification and some experience then you shouldn't be able to take the course or exam, begs the question of how much fraudulent activity is there in the training market when these qualifications are dished out in the way they are it seems to be expected that you part with £XXXX's an you will get the qualification

With regard to NAPIT's codebreakers I hate the document I feel it is the bridge that is used by those with minimal qualifications, a little knowledge and not much experience to guide them through producing a convincing EICR

 

[Murdoch]

With regard to NAPIT's codebreakers I hate the document I feel it is the bridge that is used by those with minimal qualifications, a little knowledge and not much experience to guide them through producing a convincing EICR

hum, the problem I have with it , it assumes everything installed to a previous version of the regs is a C2 

 

[binky]

hum, the problem I have with it , it assumes everything installed to a previous version of the regs is a C2 

there is definetly little attempt to teach 'old standards' are not wrong, just old! 

 

[Murdoch]

there is definetly little attempt to teach 'old standards' are not wrong, just old! 

Its almost as if the training is all about selling unnecessary upgrades to perfectly acceptable installations

 

[UNG]

there is definetly little attempt to teach 'old standards' are not wrong, just old! 

It's the Orwellian 1984 system of working, 18th edition good any other edition bad

Its almost as if the training is all about selling unnecessary upgrades to perfectly acceptable installations

Well a large gas company has been doing it for years, i believe the service engineers have sales targets

 

[Geoff1946]

Well a large gas company has been doing it for years, i believe the service engineers have sales targets

I wonder if that's the same one running a radio advert along the lines of "Is your boiler making a noise?  -  Have a new boiler ....."   

when perhaps a better answer could be, "Perhaps the combustion fan needs replacing"

 

[Sharpend]

Its almost as if the training is all about selling unnecessary upgrades to perfectly acceptable installations

This is the strategy first introduced in the 80’s after Thatcher promoted free marketing and advertising. Remember the Double glazing salesman sold you something you didn’t really need?