EIC and EICR issues

[loz2754]

The schedule of inspections applies to the relevant parts of the existing installation that are affected by the addition or alteration. That includes all of the final circuits connected to the board.

In the case of the non-IP rated light the final circuit doesn’t comply with BS7671. So, as discussed, you could document that on the EIC in the departures and non-compliances box. Technically I would argue you can’t energise that circuit because you can’t tick the equipment suitable for the zones box in section 10.1. You could N/A it, but again I’d argue that a final circuit you’ve altered doesn’t comply with BS7671, so why is that inspection not applicable?

Cable routing, N/A as you say, as it would be a LIM for an EICR anyway.

I would argue that the outgoing circuits are not affected by the alteration (new consumer unit). Only insofar as you have disconnected and reconnected them. In the case of the non-IP rated light, the final circuit that doesn’t comply with BS7671 was not installed by me, is not covered by my EIC, and so would only deserve a comment in the appropriate box. On my EIC following a board change, the whole section for bathrooms is marked N/A. I have not altered anything in the bathroom. Of course I test the circuits to make sure they are at least as safe as they were before I did my bit. I am not (contrary to popular opinion) taking on responsibility for anything other than the consumer unit. So I don't have to ensure that everything connected to the circuits is fully compliant. Only that they are at least as compliant as they were before I dirtied my hands. I am ticking boxes to say that everything I have personally touched is up to date and fully compliant. Nothing more. Unless I were to specify otherwise on the front page of my EIC.
If I had also installed, for instance, a new fan in the bathroom, this would be listed on the front page, and, as it is in the bathroom, several tick boxes would be suitably ticked.
Only if a circuit would warrant a C2 would I be obliged to either fix the problem, or refuse to re-connect it.

The clue is the name - EIC Electrical Installation Certificate - it's purpose is to certify whatever it is I have installed.
An EICR Electrical Installation Condition Report - it's purpose is to inspect and test, in other words purposefully look at every item to ensure compliance, and issue a report on the findings - good or bad.

They are 2 different animals. Maybe related, but not the same, and not interchangeable.

Edit: Just read the Connections articles. Couldn't (and didn't LOL!) have put it better.

 

[westward10]

I’m also just going to ask this, again just for arguments sake because I think this is actually an interesting conversation.

@westward10 mentioned in post 13 that he’d issue an EICR based on his recent EIC probably without a site visit provided the property is unoccupied.

A couple of the folks who agree with that have also argued that an EIC and an EICR are two completely separate beasts, and one isn’t a substitute for the other.

So, why would you be happy to produce an EICR from an EIC without further inspection and testing if the EIC isn’t as thorough in the first place?

In normal circumstances I wouldn't but from what the OP says quite a thorough inspection was carried out and if that were me I would provide an EICR.

 

[dodger421]

A lot of this comes down to ways of interpreting the regs I guess.

When I did my 2391-52 the instructor drilled into us that a new CU meant an EIC and a full inspection and test of the final circuits. If they didn’t comply with BS7671, they had no place being reconnected until they were compliant.

His argument, and he had it with pretty much all of the older sparks there, was that by altering the origin of the circuit you’ve altered the whole thing and taken on some responsibility for it so you’d better be sure it’s compliant. It stuck with me and if I’m honest I agree with what he was saying because, ultimately, you touched it last.

If I’m changing the sole board serving a domestic premises my EIC is going to be every bit as thorough as an EICR would have been, mainly because I’m going to have effectively conducted an EICR before doing the swap to ensure the circuits comply with BS7671 before reconnection and to identify any issues (borrowed neutrals, missing main bonding, undersized tails etc). They’d be rectified before the board change or during it.

 

[dodger421]

In normal circumstances I wouldn't but from what the OP says quite a thorough inspection was carried out and if that were me I would provide an EICR.

And that’s sort of my point. When I do them (rarely admittedly) the EIC for a board change and an EICR for that property are pretty much the same thing. The same thorough inspection and test carried out for both and applied to all final circuits.

I’m not saying an EIC and EICR are always the same thing. Obviously they’re not, but when you’re changing a board they are more similar than they are not. (EDIT - or at least they should be :-D)

 

[James]

No problem, I enjoy a good discussion and never assume I'm 100% right on anything.


Clearly,, You have met my wife!!

 

[James]

I think this is a customer beware issue,

as contractors, we should be supplying the documentation requested by the customer.

if they say "I am renting out this flat and the agent says I need an EICR, also the fusebox is from the middle ages, can you change it for me"

in there minds, they are making it better and should not be penalised for giving you the work of a board change by discovering that the document that you give them will not be accepted by the agents.

We all need to up our game just a little, all it takes is a comment when starting the job, is this property about to be let out? if so then it will need an EICR document.
It will take a little more inspection before i can issue it but as I am on site anyway, how does £0 to £30 (insert your own cost) sound??

 

[loz2754]

I think this is a customer beware issue,

as contractors, we should be supplying the documentation requested by the customer.

if they say "I am renting out this flat and the agent says I need an EICR, also the fusebox is from the middle ages, can you change it for me"

in there minds, they are making it better and should not be penalised for giving you the work of a board change by discovering that the document that you give them will not be accepted by the agents.

We all need to up our game just a little, all it takes is a comment when starting the job, is this property about to be let out? if so then it will need an EICR document.
It will take a little more inspection before i can issue it but as I am on site anyway, how does £0 to £30 (insert your own cost) sound??

This is exactly my approach. The customer doesn't necessarily understand the rules and is looking to us for guidance. So I always ask what it is they have been told they need and by whom. Is this going to be a rental property? I also offer advice on things like smoke and CO alarms. Not in a sales pitch kind of a way, but gentle coaching. And above all else, I tell it like it is in a kind but no nonsense way. If they've been told by someone they need a rewire/new fuse box/whatever, and I can clearly see that non of that is necessary, I will take the time to work through the pros and cons. And then I go home, tired and broke! because I talked them out of all that work.?

 

[Dartlec]

I think this is a customer beware issue,

as contractors, we should be supplying the documentation requested by the customer.

if they say "I am renting out this flat and the agent says I need an EICR, also the fusebox is from the middle ages, can you change it for me"

in there minds, they are making it better and should not be penalised for giving you the work of a board change by discovering that the document that you give them will not be accepted by the agents.

We all need to up our game just a little, all it takes is a comment when starting the job, is this property about to be let out? if so then it will need an EICR document.
It will take a little more inspection before i can issue it but as I am on site anyway, how does £0 to £30 (insert your own cost) sound??

It's also a good way of getting a good reputation - and it's fair enough that you can't expect a part-time landlord to be fully across the regulations so sometimes pointing things out at an early stage is appreciated.

....or they think you are trying to scam them for more money of course compared to the handyman who quoted 200 quid for the lot, but you can't do much about that...

This is where the Government and/or the schemes should be doing a lot more to raise awareness with landlords and encouraging good practise...

 

[Burtones]

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media/1203/best-practice-guide-1-issue-3.pdf

That's an interesting read. A few things I wasn't aware of including the part about being able to leave 6mm bonding in place if it has been in for some time and has no signs of thermal damage.

I work on the voids section for a large housing trust and whenever void work is carried out we are in first and all C1's and C2's are dealt with anyway, bonding is always upgraded to 10mm, faults repaired, circuits (or full installation) rewired as required (with minor works, eic's as necessary) and then when all other trades are finished they send another electrician in to do an eicr before making ready to let.

Because of this, I've never seen a board change without all the other work undertaken as well which is why I was interested in general as to how much you are responsible for.

“Circuits that are defective or non-compliant with BS7671 in a way that would result in immediate or potential danger must not be reconnected”

Do any of you come across this where the customer does not want to pay for other work so you have to refuse to do a board change or leave circuits disconnected?

 

[Vortigern]

I am doing this right now the same situation. And I have encountered this previously. Estate/management agents will insist on an EICR for a new tenancy. I am doing an EIC and EICR as a matter of course for a DB change. Doing the EICR as well is quite easy as I have all the figures I need from the EIC. However I think that the idea of electrical safety can be shown to have been met with an EIC or an EICR. Both show that all circuits have been tested and comply with BS7671 as required by the ESPRS requirements. But estate agents will insist on the letter of the law and call for an EICR whatever the situation as that is what it says. Personally I think that is black letter law whereas I am more teleological in my approach and would accept either as proof the installation is safe. And at the same time I understand the estate agents/landlords dilemna and will happily cater accordingly without demur.

 

[Vortigern]

A good discussion with some cogent arguments on a very topical issue. It has certainly elucidated certain elements I had not thought of, especially the fine detail of the difference between the two reports.

 

[dodger421]

Do any of you come across this where the customer does not want to pay for other work so you have to refuse to do a board change or leave circuits disconnected?

I have, thankfully, not experienced that situation. I’d like to hope most people could be convinced to spend a little extra money when the consequences of the danger are explained reasonably but I’m aware thats probably wishful thinking.

 

[ipf]

I'm sorry but that isn't correct. The certificate only certifies the work carried out, i.e. replacement of the distribution board. Other than for a new installation (including full rewire) it cannot substitute an Electrical Installation Condition Report and rightly so.

You're correct of course, my mistake in the early hours.
No allowance for 'limitations' with an EIC whilst, in such a situation, they would be required....even if complete testing is carried out (more thoroughly than is required in a periodic)
It's a bit tedious though, failing an EICR, replacing a CU/DB complete with EIC and then issuing another EICR, ?......... depends on the situation, I suppose..

 

[Risteard]

You're correct of course, my mistake in the early hours.
No allowance for 'limitations' with an EIC whilst, in such a situation, they would be required....even if complete testing is carried out (more thoroughly than is required in a periodic)
It's a bit tedious though, failing an EICR, replacing a CU/DB complete with EIC and then issuing another EICR, ?......... depends on the situation, I suppose..

There shouldn't be any need to rewrite the EICR though - just be clear about the remedial works done on the EIC (or MEIWC for other types of works) and ideally cross reference the original report.

 

[ipf]

There shouldn't be any need to rewrite the EICR though - just be clear about the remedial works done on the EIC (or MEIWC for other types of works) and ideally cross reference the original report.

That's the generally way. Hence the ?..................?

 

[Mike Johnson]

How do you guys get the Smilies to work, they just don't appear on my posts?
??????

I didn't do that, its not fair.

 

[loz2754]

How do you guys get the Smilies to work, they just don't appear on my posts?
??????

I use the Android keyboard smilies on my phone.???

 

[Micktw68]

Ok.I’ve read the whole thread and I’m still unsure of my own position. I was called in to carry out remedial work discovered on another sparks EICR , (CU Change for RCBOs/water/gas bonding and IP light in zone 2) I’ve issued my Minor works and EICs for the work I’ve carried out -effectively making the original EICR now satisfactory but the letting agent is insisting I issue a satisfactory EICR , I’ve been trying to make the point that as I didn’t carry out the original report I cant re-issue it without carrying out my own EICR on the property.
Who’s right and does my EIC/MWC appended to the original unsatisfactory report cover the LL

 

[westward10]

You are correct if they want another EICR then they should pay for it. I would personally state your Certificates cover items highlighted in the EICR do not say this should make it satisfactory.

 

[Flanders]

We get this a lot . I try and explain that the . original EICR cover the whole installation stating what is correct and well as what is wrong. The EIC and or minor works states that the observations( the wrong bits) have now been corrected . So now you have all paper work to confirm that the installation is safe .If they want an EICR then that's a separate job and should be charged for separately. Then you open a can of worms and find things that the first electrian missed and issue them an unsatisfactory report ?