Was I being unreasonable? EICR Clarifications

Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

Madasafish

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
58
Reaction score
1
Location
Ealing, London
I commissioned an EICR this month and received the final report in my email. Attached are two relevant pages from that report. I requested clarification on some of the observations but was met with "the price does not cover a long technical debate about regulations. If this is what you require I will need to invoice accordingly as I'm extremely busy."

Was I being unreasonable, here is my email....

Dear Mr Blogs,

Before I can go forward with your remedial quote, I really would appreciate it if you could be more specific with four observations recorded on your EICR.

I have paid you for an EICR service but so far am unable to get specific details from four of your observations that have been reasonably requested.  Those questions are shown at the end of this email. Where applicable in the observations, I previously asked for photographs, the request was met with I did not ask for photographs when ordering the EICR so non are available.

As the proprietor of your electrical company signing off EICR’s for a team of testers, you should be very familiar with this document.

Electrical Safety First, Best Practice Guide, Issue 5

Within the Observations section are the following paragraphs….

“After due consideration, each such observed safety issue should be recorded at the appropriate point in the inspection or test results schedule, and further detailed in the ‘observations’ section of the report.”

“Each observation should be written in a clear, accurate and concise manner that is likely to be understood by the person ordering the work.”

“An electrical installation condition report is intended to be a factual report on the condition of an installation, not a proposal for remedial work. Therefore, each recorded observation should describe a specific defect, omission or item for which improvement is recommended.”

I  am confident you do follow best practices, so can you please be more specific with the following observations recorded on your EICR. If you forward this email to your tester who completed the job, he can clarify the locations. My questions are in Italics

1.         The test results for circuit 3 show loose connections within the circuit. C2 

             Circuit 3: Max Zs Permitted = 1.10, Measured Zs L=0.16, N=0.16, CPC=0.29. I am at loss to understand what is wrong with those readings?

2.         There is no continuity of the lights circuits CPC. C2.

            Which lighting circuit, Upstairs, Downstairs or Both?. Studying the test results would indicate to me downstairs lights (R1+R2). Can you confirm?

3.         The security lights cable entry has been insulated with electrical tape. C2

            Which security light/s? (plural), there are four of them or do you mean all of them?. I can get this remedied if I know which security lights

4.         Cables are not secure. C3.

            Exactly where are the cables not secure? If you could ask your tester to clarify the locations, I can ensure they are secured.

5.         6 circuits do not have RCD protection. C3

            Understood.

6.         The Zs reading for the cookers type C RCBO exceeds the maximum permitted value. C2

             Understood.

I hope you don’t think me unreasonable requesting this information,

I look forward to your reply,

Kind regards,

Madasafish

View attachment EICR_May2021.pdf

 

Sidney

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
456
Reaction score
87
Location
St Neots
Not unreasonable to ask for clarification. Seen it so many times on remedials and I now quote additional time to locate the problem if things are not clear. When I complete an EICR I even attach pictures if required for clarification.

And why has he put RFC test results in for the cooker radial circuit?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fleeting

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Messages
816
Reaction score
112
It is not unreasonable to ask as these are technical documents often perused over by someone who doesn't understand the lingo so to speak. We never have a problem answering people's queries. A Report should be a bit more specific and not so vague that even a professional has to go searching for the issue but remember no one is obliged to follow the Best Practice Guides.

 

SPECIAL LOCATION

Trailer Boy - Electrician.
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
13,657
Reaction score
342
Just looked at the link to the schedule of results.......    (EICR_May2021)

Top right hand corner of the report:   Prospective fault current  8.09kA     :C

yet every single protective device states capacity as  6kA  ?  

And I'm not sure some of the those numbers are correct / accurate..

If considering Zs = Ze + (R1+R2)..

Then calculating Ze from the Zs & (R1+R2)'s on the sheet.. 

i.e. Column 26 (4th from right) minus column 18.

Circuits 2,4,6,9 & 11  are reasonable 0.24 & 0.28..

But 1 & 3 would give 0.93 & 0.47ohms Ze...

Is the boiler right nest to the CU?

as an R1+R2 of 0.05 with 1.5/1.0mm T&E gives a cable length of less than 2.0m.

Something is not right there?

Guinness   

 

SPECIAL LOCATION

Trailer Boy - Electrician.
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
13,657
Reaction score
342
Have I missed something with point 1?


From their own sheet column 26 for circuit #3 states max measured Zs was 0.55ohms..

And column 14 Max permissible they incorrectly quote as 1.10 ohms..

correct value from table 41.3 is actually 1.37ohms.. 

(1.1 is an 80% rule-of-thumb... NOT max permissible)

So their own Zs readings say the circuit is acceptable..

there is continuity on all legs of the ring..

calculations suggest the circuit length is somewhere between 21m to 39m ..

which could imply one or more higher resistance joints..

or just a poor connection with their meter probes/leads..

on the face of it I cannot figure out how they arrive at a C2..

Potentially dangerous..???  :shakehead

It could possibly be called and improvement recommended or further investigation.

but that's pushing it a bit IMHO.

  :C

 

Madasafish

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
58
Reaction score
1
Location
Ealing, London
@TrailerBoy. I do appreciate you reviewing "May_Company" reported results. To add fuel to fire, please find attached pages 2 and 7 from another company commissioned to do the EICR in Feb 2021. I would love to know your thoughts on this cowboy.

Observation points

1.  The MEM switch was re-secured back to the wall. Slight signs of corrosion but still working perfectly.

3.   I tightened the boiler connection box lid back.

7,8,9 They were originally C2's. When I challenged him on these circuits, he resorted to an admin error and changed them to C3.

I sent him photo's of the fixes but he required a re-visit to check himself. He even charged me an extra £25.00 for checking an 11th circuit that is clearly taped off in red to indicate the circuit is not in use any more. Given the above, I opted to use another company which was "May_Company"

View attachment EICR_Feb2021.pdf

 

binky

eco warrior......™
Supporting Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
11,991
Reaction score
627
Location
Sunny Plymouth
I sent him photo's of the fixes but he required a re-visit to check himself. He even charged me an extra £25.00 for checking an 11th circuit that is clearly taped off in red to indicate the circuit is not in use any more. Given the above, I opted to use another company which was "May_Company"

View attachment 11463


 I understand why he would want to re-visit to check works had been done, but as such simple fixes for ponts 1/3,  I would have just done that as part of works unless it involved getting tools out more than just a screwdriver.

 

Madasafish

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
58
Reaction score
1
Location
Ealing, London
If it helps at all,

Top right hand corner of the report:   Prospective fault current  8.09kA     :C

yet every single protective device states capacity as  6kA  ?  
So it's clearly wrong

Circuits 2,4,6,9 & 11  are reasonable 0.24 & 0.28..

But 1 & 3 would give 0.93 & 0.47ohms Ze...
???

Is the boiler right nest to the CU?

as an R1+R2 of 0.05 with 1.5/1.0mm T&E gives a cable length of less than 2.0m.
Yes it is, about a metre away.

 

Madasafish

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
58
Reaction score
1
Location
Ealing, London
From their own sheet column 26 for circuit #3 states max measured Zs was 0.55ohms..

And column 14 Max permissible they incorrectly quote as 1.10 ohms..

correct value from table 41.3 is actually 1.37ohms.. 

(1.1 is an 80% rule-of-thumb... NOT max permissible)

So their own Zs readings say the circuit is acceptable..
So they have used incorrect values.

here is continuity on all legs of the ring..

calculations suggest the circuit length is somewhere between 21m to 39m ..

which could imply one or more higher resistance joints..

or just a poor connection with their meter probes/leads..

on the face of it I cannot figure out how they arrive at a C2..

Potentially dangerous..???  :shakehead

It could possibly be called and improvement recommended or further investigation.

but that's pushing it a bit IMHO.
Total length of apartment is approx15m, Total width is approx 4m

 

Madasafish

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
58
Reaction score
1
Location
Ealing, London
First of all, let me thank everyone on here for time taken to answer my questions. Especially the peeps that took the time out to scrutinize the reports.

So it's come to costings....

Observations

1 The test results for circuit 3 show loose connections within the circuit. C2. 
2 There is no continuity of the lights circuits CPC. C2
3 The security lights cable entry has been insulated with electrical tape. C2
4 Cables are not secure. C3
5 6 circuits do not have RCD protection. C3
6 The Zs reading for the cookers type C RCBO exceeds the maximum permitted value. C2

To rectify the observations to obtain a SATISFACTORY EICR

1. Open sockets downstairs, re-tighten and re-test (although this forum suggests that circuit is inside permitted values?)

2. If my understanding is correct, he is referring to the downstairs lights only. I could be very wrong, but I think the R1+R2 reading was purposely omitted to indicate that CPC fault finding is required. If I am correct, it will require an additional MK architrave switch blanking plate to fix.

3. I believe it is only one security light that was replaced recently -  So open unit, undo wire, fit grommet and replace.

4. With the vague answer given, it's one of two possible places. In the small main meter cupboard or it's the central heating round cables leading to the Honeywell wiring centre. So it's clips we are talking about.

5. Nothing to change there. - yet!

6. Needs replacing - OK. £3.00 from TLC direct

Remedial Quote: £280.00

Do you guys think that is excessive?

 
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
6,897
Reaction score
609
Location
Woking
First of all, let me thank everyone on here for time taken to answer my questions. Especially the peeps that took the time out to scrutinize the reports.

So it's come to costings....

Observations

1 The test results for circuit 3 show loose connections within the circuit. C2. 
2 There is no continuity of the lights circuits CPC. C2
3 The security lights cable entry has been insulated with electrical tape. C2
4 Cables are not secure. C3
5 6 circuits do not have RCD protection. C3
6 The Zs reading for the cookers type C RCBO exceeds the maximum permitted value. C2

To rectify the observations to obtain a SATISFACTORY EICR

1. Open sockets downstairs, re-tighten and re-test (although this forum suggests that circuit is inside permitted values?)

2. If my understanding is correct, he is referring to the downstairs lights only. I could be very wrong, but I think the R1+R2 reading was purposely omitted to indicate that CPC fault finding is required. If I am correct, it will require an additional MK architrave switch blanking plate to fix.

3. I believe it is only one security light that was replaced recently -  So open unit, undo wire, fit grommet and replace.

4. With the vague answer given, it's one of two possible places. In the small main meter cupboard or it's the central heating round cables leading to the Honeywell wiring centre. So it's clips we are talking about.

5. Nothing to change there. - yet!

6. Needs replacing - OK. £3.00 from TLC direct

Remedial Quote: £280.00

Do you guys think that is excessive?


thing is, with so many mistakes I think you should ask for a free retest

 

Madasafish

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
58
Reaction score
1
Location
Ealing, London
thing is, with so many mistakes I think you should ask for a free retest
At the time, I was not aware the report was as bad as it's turned out to be. It's only when I challenged him on the original report showing C2's for circuits 7,8,9 and was immediately met with "That's an admin error, I will change those to C3's" did my suspicions arise. When he insisted he would need to come back to see if the works were completed (photo's were unacceptable) I decided to use another company to do the EICR.

EICR_Feb was booked through a third party company specializing in certificates for landlords so I will approach them and request my money back because the report produced is totally inaccurate and because of that, has no credibility. The unfortunate thing is this guy is working under the NICIEC banner. It's one for the TV show "Rogue Traders".   

 
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
6,897
Reaction score
609
Location
Woking
At the time, I was not aware the report was as bad as it's turned out to be. It's only when I challenged him on the original report showing C2's for circuits 7,8,9 and was immediately met with "That's an admin error, I will change those to C3's" did my suspicions arise. When he insisted he would need to come back to see if the works were completed (photo's were unacceptable) I decided to use another company to do the EICR.

EICR_Feb was booked through a third party company specializing in certificates for landlords so I will approach them and request my money back because the report produced is totally inaccurate and because of that, has no credibility. The unfortunate thing is this guy is working under the NICIEC banner. It's one for the TV show "Rogue Traders".   


how much were you charged for this EICR?

 
Top