Was I being unreasonable? EICR Clarifications

[Chewbacca]

and attitude like yours borders on arrogance and the intent to rip people off

 play nicely now @Murdoch

 

[Murdoch]

 play nicely now @Murdoch

i am

i stick up for Joe Public so they can see that numerous people in our trade can feel they can trust us. Too many sharks taking the mickey and yes the BPG isn’t an official document and at the risk of repeating myself is the only document that the public can turn to for guidance and as the NICEIC state their contractors should use this as there point of reference I for once agree with them

seems my friend doesn’t agree, but fails to offer anywhere the public can seek guidance

 

[Sharpend]

I think the point is, if you are competent to correctly carry out an EICR then you should be equally capable of providing a coherent understanding of any codes you have issued and why for? 
 

As I stated earlier, those that don’t have something to hide, whether that be their own incompetence or cowboy practice ?? 

 

[Sidewinder]

The Guides are not official documents to cite the correct Code to quote. BS7671 which I work to only suggests Coding for one departure and experience allows me to correctly Code other departures as necessary. Guides can lead to blindness as opposed to competence and engineering judgement. 

But BS7671 is only a guide itself.

 

[Doc Hudson]

The Guides are not official documents to cite the correct Code to quote. BS7671 which I work to only suggests Coding for one departure and experience allows me to correctly Code other departures as necessary. Guides can lead to blindness as opposed to competence and engineering judgement. 

i stick up for Joe Public so they can see that numerous people in our trade can feel they can trust us. Too many sharks taking the mickey and yes the BPG isn’t an official document and at the risk of repeating myself is the only document that the public can turn to for guidance and as the NICEIC state their contractors should use this as there point of reference I for once agree with them

seems my friend doesn’t agree, but fails to offer anywhere the public can seek guidance

To undertake a periodic inspection and issue an EICR, the person undertaking the inspection should be competent and knowledgeable of all aspects of BS7671 that relate to the type of installation being inspected. So as Fleeting suggests the inspector should not need a best practice guide if they are genuinely competent. But it is also true that while quoting an observation or non-compliance with BS7671, with a short comment and quoting a reg number, although technically correct, it could also do nothing to enhance the understanding of many clients. We all know that BS7671, (& guidance note 3), are the bench-mark non-statutory reference that are the first port of call where competent persons will verify their understanding if something complies with current regulations, and/or is satisfactory for ongoing safe use. But neither of these are accessible for free download for any member of the public to reference to assist their understanding of an EICR they may have received.

Which I think is the point Murdoch is making, currently Best Practice Guide 4 is the only reasonable, free download, guide that anybody and everybody can reference. While it may not be an official document, it is certainly not a complete work of fiction that serves no practical purpose. Obviously we live in an age where many things can change at a rapid rate, So if anyone is aware of a more current document, better than best practice guide 4, I am sure we would all be interested to know about it? 

It is also true that since the introduction of PartP and the short-course craze, where anybody can become an electrician in 5-weeks, and the recent laws regarding rented properties, an unhealthy significant number of limited competence persons are going round doing EICR's that aren't worth the paper they are printed on, or the USB stick they were downloaded from. So if customers cannot access BS761 on-line for a free cross-reference, second opinion, where should they go if best practice guide 4 is not allowed?

Doc H.              

 

[Sidney]

My mother in law commissioned and reort through their letting agent for a flat they own in Chelsea. Came back with a few C2's, FI's and the usual C3's.

High Zs on some circuits yet R1+R2 and Ze are good. Low IR on some circuits from a global test  but they couldn't gt in to isolate the boiler so I suspect this has dragged them down. No RCD protection for cables buried in a wall, even though it's run in Galv conduit. No RCD protection for circuits in bathroom but no mention of supplementary bonding, Easy to swap MCB for an RCBO if needed.

30 odd downlights not fire rated with dwelling above. However I've yet to find out if they're needed as I suspect the building is concrete construction and may already be dedicated fire compartments.

The remedials quote was £4700.

A counter quote from another company through the agents is £2700.

I quoted them £1700 and that wan't family rate, I actually added more as I don't want the work and I don't like her.

 

[Madasafish]

My mother in law commissioned and reort through their letting agent for a flat they own in Chelsea. Came back with a few C2's, FI's and the usual C3's.

High Zs on some circuits yet R1+R2 and Ze are good. Low IR on some circuits from a global test  but they couldn't gt in to isolate the boiler so I suspect this has dragged them down. No RCD protection for cables buried in a wall, even though it's run in Galv conduit. No RCD protection for circuits in bathroom but no mention of supplementary bonding, Easy to swap MCB for an RCBO if needed.

30 odd downlights not fire rated with dwelling above. However I've yet to find out if they're needed as I suspect the building is concrete construction and may already be dedicated fire compartments.

The remedials quote was £4700.

A counter quote from another company through the agents is £2700.

I quoted them £1700 and that wan't family rate, I actually added more as I don't want the work and I don't like her.

Amusing but off topic. It's about clarity in the EICR reports.

 

[Chewbacca]

I quoted them £1700 and that wan't family rate, I actually added more as I don't want the work and I don't like her.

 family are the worst customers  :^O

 

[Chewbacca]

 and the intent to rip people off

@Murdoch this is quite a serious personal accusation and not appropiate on this forum.

 

[Madasafish]

Gent's,

I had a reply to my email from Tester 3 and am a lot clearer now exactly where the issues are with the exception of EICR observation 1 that I hope you can help me out with.

Attached is a table showing the relevant circuits of the 3 Tester's results on one page.

Here is his answer in bold to my question in italic's.

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

 Which circuit L,N or E(CPC) or do you mean all 3 circuits?.

 Circuit 3: Max Zs Permitted = 1.10, Measured Zs L=0.16, N=0.16, CPC=0.29.

The upstairs sockets continuity results are different when they should be the same.

The upstairs and downstairs ring circuits are not the same. Upstairs Ring main has 6 double sockets, Downstairs Ring Main has 12 Double sockets.

Can someone please explain to me how a lower impedance reading is indicative of loose connections, I would of thought the inverse?

I look forward to your reply,

Kind regards,

Madasafish

View attachment EICR_MeterMeasurments.pdf

 

[Murdoch]

Interesting comparisons of dead tests. AND the variances in Zs readings

also 3 different ranges of numbers for the maximum permitted Zs too

glad you didn’t stick with tester 1 now

 

[Madasafish]

glad you didn’t stick with tester 1 now

Tester 1 (NAPIT) was the first and last EICR with a SATISFACTORY result. Tester 2 (NICEIC) was a new company who is rogue in my opinion and Tester 3 (NICEIC) is another company.

 

[binky]

 Which circuit L,N or E(CPC) or do you mean all 3 circuits?.

 Circuit 3: Max Zs Permitted = 1.10, Measured Zs L=0.16, N=0.16, CPC=0.29.

The upstairs sockets continuity results are different when they should be the same.

View attachment 11467

absolutely garbage, we expext the CPC to be 1.67 times more than L , so ever so slightly high, but that could easily be a slightly poor contact on the test probes. 

 

[Fleeting]

Tester 3 for the downstairs ring final don't really tally with Testers 1 and 2. Testers 1 and 2 are quite similar but Tester 3 readings are way different. As above with 2.5/1.5 cable the cpc reading should be ×1.67 of the line conductors. I would say Tester 3 readings are totally wrong considering you have two sets of previous results to compare it with.

 

[Madasafish]

I would say Tester 3 readings are totally wrong considering you have two sets of previous results to compare it with.

If I commissioned another company to do an EICR. Would tester 4 results be the same. Dare I say it. Could tester 3 loosen the downstairs socket wires to obtain the his results?

 

[Fleeting]

There is no guarantee they would be identical as there are factors to consider but I would expect them to be similar. The fact Tester 1 and 2 have similar readings you would have to consider Tester 3 is incorrect unless the circuit has changed, Tester 3 readings are considerably lower which is nothing to do with poor connections as this normally means a higher or fluctuating reading. Tester 3 indicates the circuit is considerably shorter that it was on the previous two tests.

If I were Tester 3 I would question those continuity readings.

 

[Madasafish]

Please ignore the "my" last post. I know the answer is an inequitable yes.

 

[Murdoch]

absolutely garbage, we expext the CPC to be 1.67 times more than L , so ever so slightly high, but that could easily be a slightly poor contact on the test probes. 

unless it’s 2.5 / 1 mm

OP

did you provide a copy of an EICR to the 3rd inspector?

 

[Madasafish]

did you provide a copy of an EICR to the 3rd inspector?

Yes, the 3rd inspector received the full report of both previous EICR's with the company names redacted.

 

[Madasafish]

unless it’s 2.5 / 1 mm

Scary thought.....Did they ever make 2.5mm T&E to that spec?

If we assume it is. 1mm copper cable has a current capacity in a non insulated wall (dry lined) of 13A according to these people http://www.cable-ratings.co.uk/.

In a ring main, double it to 26A. This is not sufficient to be protected by a 32A MCB.

So ....

1. Change the MCB to 16A

2. Grabbing at straws here, would a 32A RCBO suffice?