Was I being unreasonable? EICR Clarifications

[Murdoch]

Here is his reply......

Dear xxxxxx,

The readings showing the loose connections are on the table at the back of the certificate.  With all due respect please pass the certificate to another qualified electrician to complete the remedial works as the money paid so far does warrant any further comment or long debate over minor repairs.  You obviously do not trust my professional opinion so please seek another opinion elsewhere.

All future correspondence will not be responded to.  In the event that you are not happy with this please complain to the NICEIC board.

All my registration details can be found on my certificate.

Regards,

Tester 3

ouch that’s very defensive

 so is he suggesting that when he did the EICR he located lots of loose connections and tightened them? 

 

[Madasafish]

so is he suggesting that when he did the EICR he located lots of loose connections and tightened them? 

You're asking me?  This has been attached before....

View attachment EICR_May2021.pdf

 

[Chewbacca]

So are you going to act on it or do nothing. I have messaged you about this on two occasions but you fail to respond.

we have one owner dead, one seriously ill and the volunter mods like myself work full time so can't spend as much time on this forum as we would like. 

 

[Murdoch]

You're asking me?  This has been attached before....

View attachment 11479

to be honest you have a satisfactory EICR , so maybe put this down to experience and on the next inspection draw the attention to the next inspector that you have concerns about the specific circuit 

there’s not much else you can do

 

[Fleeting]

we have one owner dead, one seriously ill and the volunter mods like myself work full time so can't spend as much time on this forum as we would like. 

I wasn't aware of this so apologies for my abrupt post but I am still not happy that post can still be viewed.

 

[The Four Horsemen]

This thread is now being monitored.

Do not spoil things for others.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

I did exactly that......

Hi Tester 3,

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

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

There is a large discrepancy with your readings for circuit 3 (Downstairs Sockets) and the earlier EICR’s that you have a copy of. Is there a reasonable explanation for this or does that circuit need retesting?

Kind regards,

Here is his reply......

Dear xxxxxx,

The readings showing the loose connections are on the table at the back of the certificate.  With all due respect please pass the certificate to another qualified electrician to complete the remedial works as the money paid so far does warrant any further comment or long debate over minor repairs.  You obviously do not trust my professional opinion so please seek another opinion elsewhere.

All future correspondence will not be responded to.  In the event that you are not happy with this please complain to the NICEIC board.

All my registration details can be found on my certificate.

Regards,

Tester 3

An EICR is just a snap-shot of the condition of an installation, as interpreted by the person doing the inspection & testing, at that point in time...

What may or may not have been recorded by a different person at a different time is somewhat irrelevant...

As no one knows if some DIY alterations have or haven't taken place between EICR's!

Clearly this contractor thinks its not worth the hassle or ear-bending trying to resolve your complaints..

AND also feels you complaint would be unjustified if you did try to raise it to a higher level.

 

[Madasafish]

to be honest you have a satisfactory EICR

To be honest, it does not say "Satisfactory" on Tester 3 (May 2021) or Tester 2 (Feb 2021) EICR cert. Tester 1 "Satisfactory" EICR cert was completed in 2013 so it is out of date for a rental property.

 

[Madasafish]

What may or may not have been recorded by a different person at a different time is somewhat irrelevant...

As no one knows if some DIY alterations have or haven't taken place between EICR's!

I know. No circuit alteration has taken place since the EICR in 2013.

AND also feels you complaint would be unjustified if you did try to raise it to a higher level.

I have clearly shown in this thread that NICEIC tester's (plural) are going around rental properties and writing C2 garbage in the observations section of the EICR.  I am not suggesting for one minute that ALL inspection testers do this. A summary of my posts on this thread about my recent personal experiences are shown below.

Tester 2: (Feb 2021)

Multiple Circuits in MCB C2. For 3 circuits! 

When asked to clarify those result's, he immediately responded with "That's an admin error and changed them to C3's" for 2 circuits (alarm bells start ringing). It took another 3 months for him to concede the third circuit is not a C2. He only changed it to a C3 when I requested he send me the revised EICR with the 2 circuit amendments to allow me to pass it onto NICEIC for their review. 

Is it incompetence or someone looking to justify expensive remedial work for ghost faults?  @SPECIAL LOCATION - Threat of raising this with a higher level clearly worked.

Tester 3: (May 2021)

The test results for circuit X (Ring-Main Circuit) show loose connections within the circuit. C2.

When asked twice to clarify his own test results. He cannot or will not clearly clarify his own test results. Tester 3 wrote a long paragraph in his last reply, what is so difficult in saying sorry, it's a mistake or justifying his own test result's instead of the paragraph he wrote?

Is it arrogance, incompetence or someone looking to justify expensive fault finding remedial work for ghost faults.

So to answer your 2nd question "SPECIAL LOCATION", it is not in my nature to "DOB" people in but a line has to be drawn somewhere and it is the NICEIC reputation that is on the line now. My forced position is to order another EICR. Each inspection costs me money. Will the 4th tester show a totally different set of C2 result's and throw up his arms when I ask for clarification? The Best Practice Guide 4, Issue 5 is not worth the paper it is written on. Given the examples above, no one adheres to it.

This thread is called "Was I being unreasonable? EICR Clarifications". I will let you decide.

 

[Sharpend]

What you are experiencing is not too dissimilar to taking your vehicle for an MOT. 
when I took my wife’s car back to main dealer for MOT they highlighted several items as an advisory - namely wear to bushes. 
The following years the vehicle has been to our local garage - who are very genuine people - and yet they have not noted any advisory for bushes. 
 

When I questioned the main dealer about this the response was - we are the main representative for the manufacturer and therefore we have to note every little thing down in the interests of the manufacturer. It is not to say that the items need immediate attention but merely to point out that the items are not as their installed state. 
 

to this day none of the items they raised have been flagged by any other MOT persons. 
 

So one mans judgement may not be the same as A N Others, what one person considers wrong may not necessarily be the opinion of the next. 
As pointed out, the EICR is a snapshot at that moment by an individuals interpretation of what is in front of them. Each and every persons interpretation may differ so if you are looking to get two identical EICRs then it could be a long time coming. 
As with the MOT, you have to decide whether you accept that persons judgement or not and if they indicate repairs are required in their opinion do you trust them enough to allow them to carry out the repairs Or if you doubt them them you obtain a second opinion which will more than likely differ from the first at which point you have to either agree with them or you continue seeking a further opinion to agree with yours? 
 

what are you wanting to achieve with the multiple EICRS? 

 

[Fleeting]

I think the problem here is the continuity readings for the ring final at circuit 3 from Tester 3. They are hugely different from the previous two tests and if the circuit has not been altered as the OP states the tester should have realised without even knowing previous test results that those readings probably aren't correct. Of course testers 1 and 2 may have been at error but their readings are similar. 

 

[kerching]

@Fleeting

just noticed your "signature"

to be fair my Classical Latin is a tad rusty but, did you mean. 'sum flectere nolebant" or if actually in the affirmative then 'promptus sum flectere'?

iustus dicens

 

[Doc Hudson]

I know. No circuit alteration has taken place since the EICR in 2013.

I have clearly shown in this thread that NICEIC tester's (plural) are going around rental properties and writing C2 garbage in the observations section of the EICR.  I am not suggesting for one minute that ALL inspection testers do this. A summary of my posts on this thread about my recent personal experiences are shown below.

Tester 2: (Feb 2021)

Multiple Circuits in MCB C2. For 3 circuits! 

When asked to clarify those result's, he immediately responded with "That's an admin error and changed them to C3's" for 2 circuits (alarm bells start ringing). It took another 3 months for him to concede the third circuit is not a C2. He only changed it to a C3 when I requested he send me the revised EICR with the 2 circuit amendments to allow me to pass it onto NICEIC for their review. 

Is it incompetence or someone looking to justify expensive remedial work for ghost faults?  @SPECIAL LOCATION - Threat of raising this with a higher level clearly worked.

Tester 3: (May 2021)

The test results for circuit X (Ring-Main Circuit) show loose connections within the circuit. C2.

When asked twice to clarify his own test results. He cannot or will not clearly clarify his own test results. Tester 3 wrote a long paragraph in his last reply, what is so difficult in saying sorry, it's a mistake or justifying his own test result's instead of the paragraph he wrote?

Is it arrogance, incompetence or someone looking to justify expensive fault finding remedial work for ghost faults.

So to answer your 2nd question "SPECIAL LOCATION", it is not in my nature to "DOB" people in but a line has to be drawn somewhere and it is the NICEIC reputation that is on the line now. My forced position is to order another EICR. Each inspection costs me money. Will the 4th tester show a totally different set of C2 result's and throw up his arms when I ask for clarification? The Best Practice Guide 4, Issue 5 is not worth the paper it is written on. Given the examples above, no one adheres to it.

This thread is called "Was I being unreasonable? EICR Clarifications". I will let you decide.

The fundamental problem you, (or anyone else), will have if trying to complain to NICEIC, (and possibly other CPS providers), is the rule that they generally don't get involved with any contractual disputes.

If there is a miss-use of logo, claiming to be a member when they are not, then this is easily proved and prosecuted in a court of law.

If a contractor has done some unsafe work, installing dangerous wiring, while claiming it to be safe and compliant with all current regulations. This is also reasonably easy to prove and take to court.

But if a contractor has inspected someone else's work and considers it unsatisfactory for continued use, this by definitions in BS7671 wiring regulations and guidance note 3, is a personal opinion of the contractor doing the inspection and testing. And whilst there is guidance, there are no fixed black & white rules for every observation. So it is possible for different inspectors to arrive at different conclusions.  Best practice guide 4, as Fleeting has pointed out, is actually just a guide. It is not an official BS7671 document, and even if its was, BS7671 documents are non-statutory. 

If multiple testers have considered an installation to be unsatisfactory, even if the reasons are different, they may be doing less harm than multiple testers claiming a dangerous installation is satisfactory. I suspect the NICEIC may interpret you problem not as the unsatisfactory EICR, more the cost of suggested remedial works. Which comes back to the contractor/customer contract details, that they don't like getting involved in. 

Unfortunately just as there are dubious contractors, there are also dubious landlords/customers. If a landlord has been ensuring all electrical work is correctly installed, inspected and tested, then the recent changes in legislation for rental accommodation, will not pose any problems. As in most cases they will already have a good relationship with an electrical contractor who they trust, who will not try to extort excessive work and/or payment from them.  But if landlords have been neglecting any electrical inspection and testing, there could be all sorts of remedial work required. 

Doc H

 

[Madasafish]

The fundamental problem you, (or anyone else), will have if trying to complain to NICEIC, (and possibly other CPS providers), is the rule that they generally don't get involved with any contractual disputes.

I suspect the NICEIC may interpret you problem not as the unsatisfactory EICR, more the cost of suggested remedial works. Which comes back to the contractor/customer contract details, that they don't like getting involved in.

Firstly, let me say there is no "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (ADR) in place for EICR's. So the only place to raise a complaint is with the CPC, in my case the NICEIC.

Most people can see visual observations reported, albeit, those visual observations were questioned to Tester 2 and he corrected them. Most people do not have any knowledge of electrical circuits and certainly do not have expensive Mega or Fluke meters that need to be calibrated.

It is the metered observations that are being questioned here.

The term contractual covers two things.

The first one being "The Consumer Rights Act 2015". I payed for a professional EICR service for an important report that I have to rely on. The electrical company was provided with the two previous EICR reports. The company submitted their own report that needed clarification. I gave the professional (his words) two written opportunities to explain the anomalies or do a retest. On both occasions, the professional had time to review the report and insisted the readings are correct. The last communication with him asking me not to contact him again and get another electrician. It has been confirmed on this forum and others those readings can't possibly be correct. The course of action here is take his company to the small claims court under the "The Consumer Rights Act 2015"

The second one which is the more important in my opinion. Considering the points I raise above, the professional sporting the NICIEC's accreditation on his EICR report's is found to be submitting false meter readings on the report. These meter readings will certainly not be obvious to a person ordering the EICR. Why would they be, s/he has never been trained on using the meter. Any EICR professional can see at glance there is something odd with those meter readings. If one meter reading is wrong, then what other readings are wrong (in my case the 40A Cooker MCB)? The only possible motive for doing that is to increase the price of the remedial work for a fault that does not exist. In anyone's book, that is FRAUD. How many unsuspecting customers has this happened to? I am sure the NICEIC will sit up to that complaint. The contractual agreement is between NICEIC and the "professional" accredited with their name. The cost of the remedial work is irrelevant.

 

[Doc Hudson]

The only possible motive for doing that is to increase the price of the remedial work for a fault that does not exist. In anyone's book, that is FRAUD. How many unsuspecting customers has this happened to? I am sure the NICEIC will sit up to that complaint.

I will wish you well with your efforts to try and get a resolution via the NICEIC complaints procedure. But I suspect you may find this harder than trying to get toothpaste back in a tube. Unless it is a significant safety issue, endangering the users of an installation, or a miss-use of logo, the general perception is they will be reluctant to get involved. Or possibly if they have had multiple other complaints about the same contractor. The fundamental problem is the contractors are members of a voluntary trade body, who pay to keep the trade body running. (Similar problem with the various trusted trades checking websites. People have to pay to become members). So there can be a conflict of interests when assessing complaints about their revenue source.

Doc H.

Locked to prevent being resurrected (again)