Dodgy EICR (Consumer)

[Strima]

C2 for labelling says it all for me. I don't even mention labels, I tend to just add them.

Also lots of mention of non compliance for RCDs yet has RCD test times for nearly all circuits yet no mention of RCDs anywhere on the circuit details or anywhere else.

I hate it when inspectors do not expand on the faults found either, SELV/PELV requirements so either a shaver socket or extra low voltage lighting faulty? Or is it because the 12 volt lamp holder is not earthed?

I probably know the answer already but do you have a photo of the consumer unit?

 

[loz2754]

The answer is, not willingly.
The government introduced part P of the building regulations back in 2005 which required certain types of electrical work carried out in domestic dwellings to be notified to the the local building control department.
The government arranged for electricians involved in this type of work to be able to self certify their own work as compliant with part P, and to notify building control. The only way an electrician could self certify and notify was through the Competent Person Schemes, several of which were set up by the government. These schemes included the likes of NICEIC and Napit etc.
So scheme membership was pretty much enforced on electricians working in the domestic field. (Another option available was/is to have the householder notify building control directly, which normally involves a large fee, so it would be more cost effective to use a registered electrician).

@UNG What do you dislike about my post?

 

[Vortigern]

The point being NICEIC did what they agree on the tin to do, make good. All you are going to get out of this at best is a refund and bad work made good. Often people get on a hobby horse and seek punitive action, this is not going to happen. Slowly as it goes the industry is trying to iron out these low points and poor skills and it is not easy to get a perfect system. Don't misunderstand I do feel sympathy for your situation, however it does not entitle you to go on a crusade to seek out a punish the wrongdoers. Putting you back into the situation you were before it happened is all you can hope for at best. There will be no witch hunts, Torquemada is dead! I completely agree about Granny getting scammed, however I can assure you better people are already on to this and working to make it better i.e. trading standards for one.

 

[Bob Geldoff1234]

I do feel the NICEIC need to do more in these type of situations.Asking the original electrician to come back to sort out the problems is not acceptable.The NIC should be investigating any complaints and taking to task the rogue outfits.In order for the public to put trust into these schemes then the schemes need to be seen to be keeping a tight ship.
Most people,after feeling they have been scammed,won't want the original person back to cause even more mayhem and stress.The NIC should have a process in place where a fully qualified and trusted electrician goes out to the job to assess and put right the situation.This should be paid for out of the NIC's platinum promise.Only then would the NIC seen to be standing behind what they claim to stand for.

 

[JH4Jill]

I like failure no 2 on the report.No rcd label C2.WTF?
How will the tenant survive the night with this C2 danger present

You might like the attached too ..

To be fair to NICEIC, of whom I have no liking, they inspect a qualified supervisor and inspect the company rather than the individuals in the company. There is no doubt in this scenario a rogue or two will get into the system and get away (for a certain time) with mayhem. As @Wilko says this is not the "norm" I think NICEIC have the right idea in making sure the work is, in the end, safe and compliant. No doubt the firm you had working for you will send someone who knows what they are doing. Optimistic I know but generally speaking I think I can safely say the many electricians on here would never do such work. It is as always a minority that spoils it and tars the whole lot. Try not to let this happen. I can see the steam coming out of your vents from here, and quite rightly. In the case of negligence there are three hurdles to jump. One, Is there a duty of care, Two, was that care breached, Three, did harm result from it? Clearly there is a duty, and it was breached. The "harm" arising is loss of money and potential danger in an electrical situation. The remedy? Fix the poor work. You have been offered a means of addressing this and have refused to take it. If you will not take the necessary steps to mitigating your losses then you have no recourse to law in the matter.

Just one last thing to add here. ‘The work’ was never necessary, whether it was poor or not. Are the contractors ever likely to admit that without a referee? The ‘remedial work’ would be to put the installation back to where it was before the ‘electrician’ intervened. All that was ever required was to reconnect a loose connection. The boiler engineer was called in the following day as the heating still wasn’t working. He had it sorted in 5 minutes.

 

[Vortigern]

Well it sounds as if you have found a decent electrician, keep his number!

 

[JH4Jill]

C2 for labelling says it all for me. I don't even mention labels, I tend to just add them.

Also lots of mention of non compliance for RCDs yet has RCD test times for nearly all circuits yet no mention of RCDs anywhere on the circuit details or anywhere else.

I hate it when inspectors do not expand on the faults found either, SELV/PELV requirements so either a shaver socket or extra low voltage lighting faulty? Or is it because the 12 volt lamp holder is not earthed?

I probably know the answer already but do you have a photo of the consumer unit?

Here it is..

 

[telectrix]

The NICEIC appear to be only interested in taking subscriptions. They seem to be disinterested in the quality of the workmanship of their members, nor for the safety of the general public.

Nail on head. they're all just parasites feeding off honest sparks. no better tha rated people and my builder. at least with the latters you have a choice of paying them or not.

 

[telectrix]

Here it is..
View attachment 63246

RCD label is clearly there. IMO a C2 might be appropriate for the mish-mash of protective devices. (and a C3 if i had to get on my knees to get the cover off).

 

[GBDamo]

Looks like all the RCD C2s are for the none standard Proteus RCD in a Wylex board.

C2s for labels is just plain daft.

The lack of specifics is telling, raising an issue without detailing it is inexcusable and stinks of manufacturing remedials.

Oh and top notch redacting, don't get a job with the government ?

 

[Strima]

Here it is..
View attachment 63246

I see several issues but none that would immediately warrant a C2.

Depending on the installation method for the fridge circuit it would attract a C3 for lack of additional (30mA RCD protection) for a socket-outlet.

Mixed manufacturers of devices within the DB would also be a C3 unless signs of thermal damage, arcing, poor IP rating etc which would be a C2 IMHO.

The socket-outlets on a 16 amp circuit may be of concern depending upon the cable installation method, for example if it is run in conduit the cable is only rated for 14.5 amps, this would require further investigation. This applies if it is indeed run in 1.5mm, I suspect that's a typo.

Lack of discrimination in case of fault is the biggest worry for me as a fault would trip out everything, not good if it plunges you into darkness at the critical moment of tea making.

All of these issues are easily fixed, although the DB is useable I would be leaning more to replacing with a full RCBO unit, this would fix the discrimination, mixed manufacturer and any IP rating problems easily.

What was the problem in the bathroom that's mentioned on the report?

 

[UNG]

The answer is, not willingly.
The government introduced part P of the building regulations back in 2005 which required certain types of electrical work carried out in domestic dwellings to be notified to the the local building control department.
The government arranged for electricians involved in this type of work to be able to self certify their own work as compliant with part P, and to notify building control. The only way an electrician could self certify and notify was through the Competent Person Schemes, several of which were set up by the government. These schemes included the likes of NICEIC and Napit etc.
So scheme membership was pretty much enforced on electricians working in the domestic field. (Another option available was/is to have the householder notify building control directly, which normally involves a large fee, so it would be more cost effective to use a registered electrician).

None of the CP schemes were actualy set up by the government, The big two NICEIC and NAPIT were already in existence before the Part P legislation, the NIC dates back to 1956, NAPIT set up in 1992, the others saw an opportunity to make a quick buck and set up schemes that were cheaper option and ained approval from the government body that oversees the CP scheme providers, over the last few years we have seen the big two buy up the smaller schemes to strengthen their stranglehold on the market.
I find it strange that the only 2 prosecutions I know of personally since Part P notification became law were by the HMRC

 

[mattg4321]

That report is a shambles.

In addition to everything else that has been mentioned, all the Zs results are the same for each circuit and every circuit is a ring final according to the schedule of test results. It’s clearly just been completely made up. Visual test only imo. I could’ve given you a more accurate report after 5 minutes in the property.

Edit. Also IR test voltage 200v. That’s not even an approved voltage to test IR at, nor is it even possible on a lot (most/all?) test equipment.

 

[Vortigern]

And speaking of labels the guy doing the EICR failed to put on a required label, being when it was inspected and date of the next inspection.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I wonder if the type of person to complete an EICR like this ever feels remorse, guilt or perhaps regret afterwards or later on in life. A report is carried out to identify dangerous electrical issues that could end up killing someone. I just don't get it.

I have to believe that the majority of electricians realise the importance of the work they do. I think we see more crappy EICR's on here because that's what people come on here for, i.e. they are suspicious of the EICR's they have had carried out.

Sorry for not answering your questions OP, although it sounds like you now have the answers and are preparing for battle.

 

[Dave OCD]

Another shambolic and atrocious EICR, I'm afraid that around 70% of the ones I see these days are of a similar standard, it seems a popular tactic to invent as many C2s as possible which can all be cured by a new CU, of course the made up test results will just be transferred to the EIC saving time and increasing profits at the same time. Although one recent 'post EICR' quote sent to me for comments for an 8 way RCBO board and replacement bathroom light also included supply of a Minor Works cert upon completion ?! And all for the bargain price of £850 + VAT. ? This was from a NA### member firm, but anyway I've got the job now, it'll be done right for a lot less than £1020 !!

 

[Zerax]

I wonder if the type of person to complete an EICR like this ever feels remorse, guilt or perhaps regret afterwards or later on in life. A report is carried out to identify dangerous electrical issues that could end up killing someone. I just don't get it.

It's because the whole EICR system is seen as either a box ticking exercise or as a sales tool to increase business. Only when we see people kicked out of competent persons schemes or prosecuted/deported will we see an increase in the standard.

At the risk of sounding old... this is all part of the modern world... certificates are issued for all sorts of things... and the vast majority of them mean nothing !!

It's the same with qualifications... within a few years every school leaver will be given grade As !

 

[GBDamo]

It's because the whole EICR system is seen as either a box ticking exercise or as a sales tool to increase business. Only when we see people kicked out of competent persons schemes or prosecuted/deported will we see an increase in the standard.

At the risk of sounding old... this is all part of the modern world... certificates are issued for all sorts of things... and the vast majority of them mean nothing !!

It's the same with qualifications... within a few years every school leaver will be given grade As !

The modern business model seems to be to insert yourself between a product and a market and, with the help of the government, regulate the supply of the product and mandate its supply.

The regulation was, and still is, unnecessary, nobody wants it, nobody is interested in implementation.

The only interested party is the middle man, and he's only interested in collecting the fees

 

[pc1966]

While that CU looks a bit of a mess, I don't see a C" for the mix of devices as no sign of thermal stress and all controls operate in the same direction.

For some bizarre reason some of the schemes have their own guidance, even though they are on the board of the "best practice guides" which cover inspection in #4 from here:

Best Practice Guides | Electrical Safety First

Electrical Safety First produces, in association with other industry bodies, a range of Best Practice Guides which provide definitive information and guidance on a range of technical subjects.

www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk

If you are getting an EICR done and have even the smallest interest in the process and reasoning then BPG #4 is well worth reading and a voice of sanity in what sadly is becoming a loss-leading scam by the big players.

 

[JH4Jill]

That report is a shambles.

In addition to everything else that has been mentioned, all the Zs results are the same for each circuit and every circuit is a ring final according to the schedule of test results. It’s clearly just been completely made up. Visual test only imo. I could’ve given you a more accurate report after 5 minutes in the property.

Edit. Also IR test voltage 200v. That’s not even an approved voltage to test IR at, nor is it even possible on a lot (most/all?) test equipment.

Thank you! I really appreciate your time and your comments. Jill