Test Sheet Madness

[Nicky Tesla]

Found the previous periodic test sheet today in a property. The property is a ground floor unoccupied flat in a 3 story block, with no gardens. All very simple.

Page 1. Shows "unsatisfactory" yet on page 2 "satistactory" is shown.

Page2. One of the listed faults was " all circuits have 3871 typ2 MCBs in use" code 2

Also " No neutral continuity on the socket circuit" code 3, No RCD protection code 2, 240v fan above bath code 4.

Page3. The cert was only valid for 1 year yet (2 years ago) no'one has ordered a new cert to be issued

It was given 1 year "provided that any items given a code 2 must be remedied without delay. 2 years later and still no RCDs etc.

TNS ticked when it is TNCS

U1 230v Uo 240v

Ze 0.2 when it is 0.07

1361 Main fuse at a supposed 60A, yet he has put 100A as Max demand in a 1 bedroom flat with no shower.

Water and Gas bonds both ticked.

When i looked neither were connected and no evidence of ever being connected just stuffed in long lengths behind units and gas pipe boxing. (all kitchen and boiler work was done prior to the test.)

Means of earthing

Distributors facility ......N/A, Installation earth electrose........N/A

Page 4 (tick sheet)

Basic protection...obsticles Y...Barriers Y..placing out of reach Y

Fault protection

Prescence of earthing arrangements for combined protective and functional purposes ....y

Electrical separation

for MORE than one item of equipment...Y

Presence of diagrams...Y

Labelling of protective devices...Y (Even though an MCB is still labelled as immersion when it has been removed and replaced with a combi)

Presence of undervoltage protective devices.....Y

Schedule of items tested

basic protection by barrier or enclosure provided during erection.....Y

Insulation of non-conducting floors or walls......Y

Verification of voltage drop.......Y

Page 5 Circuit Details.

Supply to distribution board is from "Local Authority"

"overcurrent protective device for the DB is......"5419" (that is a switch and not an OCPD)

Type of wiring......CCCC

Reference method....AAAA

Circuit 3 Boiler.......Found that this circuit is connected to the switch for the removed immersion heater

Page6 Schedule of test results

R1+R2 for the cooker.......0.28 The cooker is very close to the DB so this is easily seen to be too much. This was tested by me to be 0.06 ie 6metres away.

Max Ze for lighting circuit .....N/A (when the R1+R2=0.64)

UNBELIEVABLE THis from a Fully qualified NICEIC registered Part P compliant IDIOT.:red cardheadbang

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Unfortunately i find this sort of thing every week. I have some pics from a job last week with a cert i will post later

 

[kme]

I have a very similar certificate piece of scrap paper here. Must get round to scanning & posting it.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

I'll get this one in first then, every single thing written on it is wrong, apart maybe from the previous occupiers name. Sorry for the poor quality , it was probably a photocopied and tippexed out page before it was given . I did a Google of the signatory and the address is a fencing company & i know it, its a house.

 

[kme]

"Lumpin` F^&*" , that`s a bad `un!

Maybe it belongs in the "quiz" sub-section..........how many errors can you find??

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

I will see if i can get a better copy. The workmanship was worse than the paperwork ROTFWL

 

[kme]

This is a 3 page pile of poo!

( my redactions)

I can`t even tackle the guy who produced this about it........it doesn`t have a ser. no. ; ergo it can`t be a certificate

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was made at 11:00 ----------

All I can say - I`ve never known an RCD that could trip that quickly; and his meter must be super-duper to read it - 0.01ms FFS :slap

And if anyone can explain how to verify phase sequence when you`ve got one phase, you can claim any prize from Admin`s top shelf (as long as you`re old enough).

n.b. page 2: all items in the left hand column are ticked - the only n/a`s are selv and segregation

 

[Theorysparky]

I once had an AC get hold of my PIR and questioned me on my IR readings

a cooker cct small run......all 3 readings were >1000meg

you cant have that er yeah i can tw@t thats the nature of my test kit

end of call

 

[Ash]

">2"

wow informative, it might only be 3Mohms and in a few months time be a fault, but at least it's >2.

Stopped reading there, raging

 

[professional]

This is a 3 page pile of poo!( my redactions)

I can`t even tackle the guy who produced this about it........it doesn`t have a ser. no. ; ergo it can`t be a certificate

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was made at 11:00 ----------

All I can say - I`ve never known an RCD that could trip that quickly; and his meter must be super-duper to read it - 0.01ms FFS :slap

And if anyone can explain how to verify phase sequence when you`ve got one phase, you can claim any prize from Admin`s top shelf (as long as you`re old enough).

n.b. page 2: all items in the left hand column are ticked - the only n/a`s are selv and segregation

A certificate needs some form of unique identifier which MAY be a serial number - however, there are enough unique identifiers on this paperwork to make it a certificate in law.

 

[kme]

So you missed the bit where the RCD in the DB (which apparently forms its own distribution circuit) has a 0.4 disconnection time?

Or the other silly, time-consuming mistake I always make - if you have ring end-to-end; you don`t have to bother with r1+r2 values?

I didn`t know we still HAD an installation ref. method "1"

 

[philbas]

So you missed the bit where the RCD in the DB (which apparently forms its own distribution circuit) has a 0.4 disconnection time?Or the other silly, time-consuming mistake I always make - if you have ring end-to-end; you don`t have to bother with r1+r2 values?

I didn`t know we still HAD an installation ref. method "1"

I think the point Pro was trying to make, was that just not providineg a serial numbers does not exclude it from been a valid cert in law, ie a cert that could be used as evidence in court.

You have removed information from the copy posted here for very good reasons, but I would think the name of the company and the sig of the person doing the work along with a complaint from the customer would cary a lot of weight in a court.

Even if its not valid as a cert it is an attempt to present it as a cert, this I think would be classed as fraud.

No one is disupting its a pile of ****

 

[kme]

Phil:

Professional did a "pushy-shovey" - he posted his comments as I was replying to Ash!!!

"Unique identifiers"? Yes, I guess there are; but to call THAT a certificate is akin to calling its author an "electrician"

We all seem to be seeing more & more of these so-called "certificates" being produced....

I`m not mentioning names, but I`ve spoken to a member on here today; who compiled a PIR on a domestic, and gave it an "unsatisfactory" because the PV generator feeds onto one side of a split load board; effectively giving all circuits on that side of the board a 5sec disconnection time. The contractor he`s working for disputed this, and badgered their QS into rewriting the EICR, missing the bit about the PV, and marking it as "satisfactory". !!!! WTF is the point of "doing it right", when these wazzocks are becoming more prolific than those of us who try to do a "proper" job of it?

 

[Manator]

I did note that he has a main fuse which is rated at 8kA and he has 16kA at the distribution board. He carried out a Ra on a magic rod, in fact nearly everything but his name is probably made up in his head.

 

[steptoe]

he probably made that name up too,

I'll bet his real name is Marion Morrison.! :slap

 

[Ash]

Philrofessional did a "pushy-shovey" - he posted his comments as I was replying to Ash!!!

"Unique identifiers"? Yes, I guess there are; but to call THAT a certificate is akin to calling its author an "electrician"

We all seem to be seeing more & more of these so-called "certificates" being produced....

I`m not mentioning names, but I`ve spoken to a member on here today; who compiled a PIR on a domestic, and gave it an "unsatisfactory" because the PV generator feeds onto one side of a split load board; effectively giving all circuits on that side of the board a 5sec disconnection time. The contractor he`s working for disputed this, and badgered their QS into rewriting the EICR, missing the bit about the PV, and marking it as "satisfactory". !!!! WTF is the point of "doing it right", when these wazzocks are becoming more prolific than those of us who try to do a "proper" job of it?

hehe, I did see them. That whole sheet is one big joke

 

[professional]

A truly competent person should be able to falsify a set of test results that can pass close scrutiny by his peers!

Amateurs .... :slap

 

[steptoe]

exactly. :slap

 

[NozSpark]

A truly competent person should be able to falsify a set of test results that can pass close scrutiny by his peers!Amateurs .... :slap

That was my thought,,,

if you're going to falsify a cert you should at least put some believable results down

 

[professional]

I`ll never forget an EIC from a few years back (I think it was of an NICEIC Approved contractor) - stating that the trip time @30mA was 22ms, and 45ms @150mA!

Just to make matters worse - an rcd had never even been fitted in the board ....

Seems as though things are really improving, doesn`t it? :innocent