responsibility with regards to EICR when it fails ?

[andy_spark]

As regards to 32a mcb, have a look at the current time curves in the BGB. I remember this coming up before on here, I a 32a mcb will draw 50 amps for 800 - 1000 seconds or about 13 - 16 minutes. An 8.5 kw shower is not going to draw more than 41 amps a 250 volts, according to Fig 3a4 it will not trip before 10 000 seconds or 166 minutes or 2.75 hours or a very, very, very long hot shower.

 

[philbas]

property is vacant at the moment and client told me to do nothing after report until he has discussed it with his partner that is why code 1 were not rectified , decorative switch cover had been fitted over top of broken switch so no immediate danger with that but with regards to consumer unit blanks i agree i should have made it safe , but client wanted no remedial work done , what can i do apart from pay for the blanks and absorb the costs , Turning off the power was not an option .

If i's vacant then isuue paperwork saying in your opinion its dangerous, If its occupied with small children, issue papaerwork to say it is potentialy deadly and look up the number for social services, then give it to them

 

[NozSpark]

The councils housing officer will have a bit more weight, they can issue a 30 day notice for problems to be sorted

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Rang up napit technical and they agreed with the coding of the shower as a c2 with regards to no rcd protection so it just goes to show the conflict in opinion amongst said experts and you professionals , different strokes for different folks i guess , whos right , whos wrong ?

If the shower was installed under 16th edition..

AND

the manufactures instructions did NOT say install an RCD....

then it can only be a C3 code...

as it would have been complying with regs when installed.

Be interesting to know how Napit-man knows about when your shower was installed.??? :C

 

[philbas]

Specs stop diverting it again, this really is not about the codes its about the responsibility, 1 and 5 are enough

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 00:26 ---------- Previous post was made at 00:26 ----------

I for one would like to keep it on topic

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Specs stop diverting it again, this really is not about the codes its about the responsibility, 1 and 5 are enough ---------- Post Auto-Merged at 00:26 ---------- Previous post was made at 00:26 ----------

I for one would like to keep it on topic

erm.....??? :C

I was replying the the OP's (wsoppitt) post #19..

where HE raised the point about codes.. headbang

and as it is the OP's thread...

IMHO he can take it down whatever path he wishes..

for us then to comment on?

dunno why I bother sometimes???

 

[NozSpark]

Specs stop diverting it again, this really is not about the codes its about the responsibility, 1 and 5 are enough ---------- Post Auto-Merged at 00:26 ---------- Previous post was made at 00:26 ----------

I for one would like to keep it on topic

The thing is, getting the codes right is his responsibility as well

 

[philbas]

erm.....??? :C I was replying the the OP's (wsoppitt) post #19..

where HE raised the point about codes.. headbang

and as it is the OP's thread...

IMHO he can take it down whatever path he wishes..

for us then to comment on?

dunno why I bother sometimes???

the question I thought we were answering was

My question is , the customer might get this work corrected by somebody else and then wants me to go back and retest on the failed points and issue the EICR , what is my obligation with regards to this ? Do i have to go back and retest the corrected faults at my own expense , charge for and carry out a complete new report , not obliged to go back ( i kinda said would do it for

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

the question I thought we were answering was My question is , the customer might get this work corrected by somebody else and then wants me to go back and retest on the failed points and issue the EICR , what is my obligation with regards to this ? Do i have to go back and retest the corrected faults at my own expense , charge for and carry out a complete new report , not obliged to go back ( i kinda said would do it for

 

[philbas]

far to many if them

 

[ProDave]

Just my two pence worth.

"trivial" things like a broken light switch and missing blanks, I would fix there and then. They cost a few pence and I would rather fix them and add half an hour to my bill, rather than argue with the customer if they really need doing or not. At least then I know I am not leaving dangerous exposed parts.

The shower, as stated if installed to 16th may not have needed an RCD. I would get my clamp meter out and actually measure the current the shower was drawing in use before deciding if the circuit was adequate.

What's "switch polarity incorrect"? A light switch fitted upside down?

The only real fault is the broken ring *. Depending how many sockets were involved, I would have been tempted to unscrew a few fronts and have a look. That again might have been something you could have fixed quickly.

I work on the principle that it's better to spend an hour extra and fix most of the faults, than just leave them and have to go back. There's always the suspicion the customer may decide they are not important and not bother.

* assuming as stated I had corrected the missing blanks and broken light switch

 

[green-hornet]

I have seen far too many PIR's incorrectly coded to be a little bemused by those who have done the reports. I say PIR simply because I have been fortunate to date in not having seen any EICR's.

As far as obligations go, you have a duty of care when doing any EICR, and that means you must be diligent in your appraisal, and fully conversant with the edition that the installation was installed to.

After giving your report to the client your obligation ends, providing it represents a honest evaluation of the installation. I always give an estimate for any remedials, and this is done simply because on a percentage I get to do the remedials. The ones I do not get I do not lose sleep over.

I have on many an occasion done a report after the client has previously had an installation condemed, only to find that inexperiance led the electrician who did the initial report to fail a perfectly good working installation.

I would add that 90% of faults can be found on the visual inspection, especially in domestic installations as they are seldom abused by overloading, unless installed pre 1960,s.

 

[apprentice87]

Hi All,

The "MOT" comparison is a little wrong......The idea that they will only retest the "repaired bits" might be what some of them do, but if VOSA found out, they would lose their testers cert...

It is rather complicated, and i cannot remember all the rules now, but basically, if you take your car for an MOT, and it fails, IF the garage do the work, and IF they do it within 10 days, they will do a "free" MOT for you, PROVIDED THE CAR DOES NOT LEAVE THE GARAGE

If however, you take your car away, then you have to have a full new test and pay the full fee.

The reasoning is; once the car has left the garage, there is no knowing what you have done to it, you might have even crashed!!

Anyway, back to the question in hand;

As Sidewinder pointed out, if you did not do the remedials yourself, you must do a full new inspection and not just the repaired bits, because, as Sidewinder pointed out, you do not know what other bits the "repairer" might have tinkered with!!!

Besides, how many times have you all been to look at an installation, found it had been inspected, Ooooh, and look!! there is even a nice sticker saying it has been inspected and is due for another one at such and such date, "so everything must be ok" but when you look, there are all kinds of silly things wrong.....

john..

 

[green-hornet]

Are you sure your an apprentice? If you are, you have a very good career ahead of you!

Very good answer.

 

[steptoe]

G-H

he is our secret legal-eagle.

 

[sellers]

This is simples. Failed PIR/EICR given.

As i do my certs on pc, if I am doing the remedial within a repectable ammount of time I will then delete the codes and issue a satisfactory report. If its not me doing remedials I will just issue the report.

If I am doing remedials following someone elses report I will issue MWC or EIC for any relevent work I've done, also I will issue a signed letterheaded paper stating what work has been completed regarding which fault number to rectify it. Also stating that PIR cert ref: xxxx has now had all relevant improvements made. Meaning you aren't saying the installation is safe, only that you have rectified all faults found on the previous report by the previous contractor.

 

[Evans Electric]

what are you refuring to as OCPD ?

That threw me too TBH .......Official Cambridge Police Department ..........Overly Careful & Protective Disorder ....Steps makes them up as he goes you know . :C

 

[steptoe]

you know what they say

Dazzle 'em with brilliance

or

Baffle 'em with bull****

 

[PC Electrics]

Hi All,The "MOT" comparison is a little wrong......The idea that they will only retest the "repaired bits" might be what some of them do, but if VOSA found out, they would lose their testers cert...

It is rather complicated, and i cannot remember all the rules now, but basically, if you take your car for an MOT, and it fails, IF the garage do the work, and IF they do it within 10 days, they will do a "free" MOT for you, PROVIDED THE CAR DOES NOT LEAVE THE GARAGE

If however, you take your car away, then you have to have a full new test and pay the full fee.

The reasoning is; once the car has left the garage, there is no knowing what you have done to it, you might have even crashed!!

john..

Utter rubbish!

MOT Testers Manual - the Vehicle Inspectorate - car and light commercial vehicle testing

 

[steptoe]

2 points,

that link is to a GUIDE

it also states very clearly in that GUIDE

When carrying out a partial retest the NT must examine

. all the failed item(s)

. any item(s) that may have been affected by the repairs

. and any testable item that had been advised on at the time of the initial test.

If during a retest it is clear that any defect is present which would mean the issue of a test certificate is not justified, a further VT30 must be issued.

so, in my mind that would be all the electrics, as you do not know just what the 'repairer' might have done,

poor N continuity on the ring could easily be fixed by looping a neutral from the [for instance] immersion heater circuit,

not likely perhaps, but we have all seen borrowed neutrals on lighting circuits, and borrowed earths on older twin rubber installs that dont utilise spider earthing.