Review of EICR

lass_lost · Jan 13, 2025

Dear all professional electricians
This is the report we were sent by our seller. Does this report look okay, especially the readings. If anything is missing I would be grateful if you could point it out.

Thanks

James · Jan 14, 2025

I think you should get your own report done, that looks wrong to me.

littlespark · Jan 14, 2025

Couple of things stand out.

61009 is not a suitable main protective device type.

Mainswitch rating is stated as 100V as well as 100A. Should be 230V

Every measured Zs is exactly the same. (0.68 ohms) This should be different for every circuit….

His C3 coding at the beginning mentions putting surge protection in, but his circuit schedule has a surge device ticked as being present.

Looks like a rush job to me….

Do you know how long they were in the property for?

cireland · Jan 14, 2025

It's also down as a D.C. supply. TN-C-S wjth an earth mat?
There is quite a lot wrong with ir.

PS Electrics · Jan 14, 2025

lass_lost said:
Dear all professional electricians
This is the report we were sent by our seller. Does this report look okay, especially the readings. If anything is missing I would be grateful if you could point it out.

This report is worthless as per the replies given above. I am suspecting this is a copy and paste job with bits left in from a previous report. ie Earth Mat for details of the Electrode when it is already stated it is TN-C-S and earthing is supplied by the distributer and Earth Electrode is N/A.

As other have said DC for the supply? 100V main Switch and it is apparently only 1 pole.

As stated above readings all the same on different circuits?

Could go on.

westward10 · Jan 14, 2025

IR test voltage is quoted as 200 but probably should be 250.
No RCBO readings or types, assuming they are 61009.
No ring final readings.
I suspect the protective devices are 6ka not 10ka.
Has confirmed phase sequence when it is probably single phase.

littlespark · Jan 14, 2025

The list of mistakes is getting longer.

I did notice the IR was “200” on some and “>200” on others, which is more likely. Pointed out by westward above

Also, out of interest, was the overall outcome marked as “SATISFACTORY”? Which is what a single C3 would bring about?

Without being on site ourselves, we can’t say how good the installation actually is, but it’s a sure thing that the report itself is a load of rubbish.

westward10 · Jan 14, 2025

According to the schedule circuit 3 is spare with a missing cover, Code 2?

littlespark · Jan 14, 2025

I think we now wait for OP to return.

It’s getting to be a weekly occurrence, someone comes on here with a dodgy EICR.

lass_lost · Jan 14, 2025

littlespark said:
Couple of things stand out.

61009 is not a suitable main protective device type.

Mainswitch rating is stated as 100V as well as 100A. Should be 230V

Every measured Zs is exactly the same. (0.68 ohms) This should be different for every circuit….

His C3 coding at the beginning mentions putting surge protection in, but his circuit schedule has a surge device ticked as being present.

Looks like a rush job to me….

Do you know how long they were in the property for?

Thank you for your inputs.
SPD: 61009 is not suitable. Should it be BS60947?
Mainwitch current rating: should it be 100 A & voltage raring should it be 230 V?

Measured Zs: Is this under schedule of circuit & test results? There are different Z values there. About SPD, thank you for that. I didn't even realise it.

This electrician is NICEIC registered. Im not sure how long was the inspection.

We are very frustrated, since this is the second electrician called for inspection. The first one was NAPIT registered & apparently there were glaring faults in that report too. We have a disabled wheelchair bound child at home & we need peace of mind that electrics are safe in the house. But the certified, registered electricians are now coming up with reports as work of art, very subjective to interpretation. The earlier electrician produced the report as follows

lass_lost · Jan 14, 2025

cireland said:
It's also down as a D.C. supply. TN-C-S wjth an earth mat?
There is quite a lot wrong with ir.

It should be AC supply, right? This is the second report commissioned, NICEIC registered electrician.

The earlier NAPIT registered electrician produced this report: AC supply 1 phase (2 wire)

lass_lost · Jan 14, 2025

PS Electrics said:
This report is worthless as per the replies given above. I am suspecting this is a copy and paste job with bits left in from a previous report. ie Earth Mat for details of the Electrode when it is already stated it is TN-C-S and earthing is supplied by the distributer and Earth Electrode is N/A.

As other have said DC for the supply? 100V main Switch and it is apparently only 1 pole.

As stated above readings all the same on different circuits?

Could go on.

I am feeling so let down.

This is the second guy doing report. Both registered.

How do I find a competent guy?

Tom256 · Jan 14, 2025

littlespark said:
His C3 coding at the beginning mentions putting surge protection in, but his circuit schedule has a surge device ticked as being present.

A type 1 SPD which, if such was required on this installation, would also need a type 2 device

lass_lost · Jan 14, 2025

westward10 said:
IR test voltage is quoted as 200 but probably should be 250.
No RCBO readings or types, assuming they are 61009.
No ring final readings.
I suspect the protective devices are 6ka not 10ka.
Has confirmed phase sequence when it is probably single phase.

westward10 said:
According to the schedule circuit 3 is spare with a missing cover, Code 2?

Thank you for your inputs. This is the second report commissioned. To be honest I'm still trying to make sense of what you all have written, grateful for the feedback. Though I am frustrated that certified electricians can be so incompetent. This is the CU pic, not sure if this can help make some sense of the report.

Also, possible C2, that's concerning! :-(

lass_lost · Jan 14, 2025

littlespark said:
The list of mistakes is getting longer.

I did notice the IR was “200” on some and “>200” on others, which is more likely. Pointed out by westward above

Also, out of interest, was the overall outcome marked as “SATISFACTORY”? Which is what a single C3 would bring about?

Without being on site ourselves, we can’t say how good the installation actually is, but it’s a sure thing that the report itself is a load of rubbish.

Yes, this report says 'Satisfactory'.
Incidentally the earlier report done in Dec 2024, also said 'Satisfactory' though the numbers/readings in the two reports are wildly different. The electrics are 15-16 years old, house built in 2009-10

Westward surmises that it could be C2 since according to the schedule circuit 3 is spare with a missing cover. That would mean potentially dangerous.

Tom256 · Jan 14, 2025

lass_lost said:
SPD: 61009 is not suitable. Should it be BS60947

No the primary protective device details are not correct on that second report you have attached.

What is your general location within England?

lass_lost · Jan 14, 2025

Tom256 said:
No the primary protective device details are not correct on that second report you have attached.

What is your general location within England?

Im based in Kent.
I have attached two reports, latest one done in Jan 2025 (NICEIC registered) in my original post & in replies another report done in Dec 2024 (NAPIT registered). Seems both are terribly wrong.

HappyHippyDad · Jan 14, 2025

lass_lost said:
Im based in Kent.
I have attached two reports, latest one done in Jan 2025 (NICEIC registered) in my original post & in replies another report done in Dec 2024 (NAPIT registered). Seems both are terribly wrong.

I do feel for you.
You expect a registered electrician to be competent and take some pride in their work.
There has already been alot said about the report, so nothing to add. I agree, it is awfully written and incorrect in many places.

I would talk to my neighbours to get word of mouth recommendations for an electrician. Then, start using the different recommendations you get until you find a keeper.

Tom256 · Jan 14, 2025

lass_lost said:
Im based in Kent.
I have attached two reports, latest one done in Jan 2025 (NICEIC registered) in my original post & in replies another report done in Dec 2024 (NAPIT registered). Seems both are terribly wrong.

Sadly all too common. Once you see such basic errors there is nothing in the rest of the report you can trust.

If I was closer to you I would be prepared to assist. Perhaps someone competent here will be in your location and able to help

Tom256 · Jan 14, 2025

The trade bodies appear to have little desire to address these issues.
By not doing so they enable this incompetence and by association smear all other members of these association the same.
Removing the incompetent supports the competent perhaps they should remember this duty.

I am not a member of the NICEIC or NAPIT and would never again want to be so. Membership of such is no indication of competency or integrity.
As I am not a member and by reference to the advice to the public from these bodies and Electricity Safety First that would make persons such as myself to be persons best avoided in matters of electrical reporting.
Funny how it all works these days