EICR/ Amendment

[cliffed]

Went to an electrical chat about the 4th Amendment & EICR coding… FI will now be a satisfactory outcome
Green goo C2 even if IR passes..& a rewire if this is the case why not C2 cable with no Cpc… & rewire
RCD Type AC C3… any electronic equipment Do the test if it trips within the permitted times C3
What’s going on

 

[westward10]

Coding is the opinion of the person undertaking the job not what some "electrical chat" is telling you. You can chose to make it unsatisfactory even if there are no Code 2, 3 or FI that is your perogative.

 

[Brother Blue]

BS7671 doesn't tell us what to code any specific situation so that wont be a part of the amendment, it only tells us what the codes represent and it is up to us to make the decision as to what code applies to any particular situation.

 

[cliffed]

Coding is the opinion of the person undertaking the job not what some "electrical chat" is telling you. You can chose to make it unsatisfactory even if there are no Code 2, 3 or FI that is your perogative.

They were NICEIC TECH people..there are so many different opinions & they are not even getting things correct

 

[cliffed]

BS7671 doesn't tell us what to code any specific situation so that wont be a part of the amendment, it only tells us what the codes represent and it is up to us to make the decision as to what code applies to any particular situation.

Agree it’s not part of the Amendment.. it was the talk on EICR codes which were concerning

 

[cliffed]

The actual Draft is not published @ the moment but new wording for the codes have been issued
FI required. Its now FI recommended & will be A Satisfactory outcome
Unlike at present it’s Unsatisfactory

 

[westward10]

No you can still make it unsatisfactory. It states, at present Code1, 2 or FI present it must be unsatisfactory it does not say if you have Code 3 only it must be satisfactory so the same would apply even if you have no Code 1 or 2.

 

[UNG]

They were NICEIC TECH people..there are so many different opinions & they are not even getting things correct

The NICEIC are not best placed to talk about EICR's when the quality of the EICR's produced by some of their registered contractors would be better printed on toilet paper.
You can't do an EICR remotely so why are these CPS organisations trying to do it by steering the decisions of the guy on the ground, a one size fits all scenario in a book does not fit all the variables of the conditions on site. It has become the sticking plaster for the sub standard training and acreditation that has become the norm over the last 20 years

 

[Brother Blue]

They were NICEIC TECH people..there are so many different opinions & they are not even getting things correct

no surprise at all that those six letters, NICEIC, are to be found at the root of this

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Nothing I have read in BS7671, or in any guidance, suggests that we can give an unsatisfactory outcome to EICRs that don't contain C1's, C2's or FI's, and I don't believe we are intended to, based on the following:

Section E of the model form,

"An unsatisfactory assessment indicates that dangerous (code C1) and/or potentially dangerous (code C2) conditions have been identified."

This statement on the model form rather unhelpfully fails to mention FI, which is point 9 of the Notes for the person producing the Report:

"Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E."

That last point also addresses the claim in post #1 about FI. An FI cannot have a satisfactory outcome, as there are potentially C1 or C2's there.

 

[westward10]

Nor does it say a satisfactory shall be given if no Code 1, 2 or FI are present.

 

[cliffed]

Nor does it say a satisfactory shall be given if no Code 1, 2 or FI are present.

Getting confused now, if Code 1,2 or FI this is an unsatisfactory installation

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Just for fun, I put the above statements from the model forms into Chat GPT, and asked if an unsatisfactory outcome was possible in the absence of C1, C2 or FI codes. Here is what it came back with:

"Do you think an unsatisfactory outcome is possible in the absence of C1, C2, or FI codes?"

Answer:​

---

Here's why:​

1. C1 and C2: The first comment explicitly states that an unsatisfactory assessment occurs when dangerous (C1) or potentially dangerous (C2) conditions are present.
2. FI: The second comment makes it clear that even in the absence of a confirmed C1 or C2, an FI code alone (due to the potential for hidden danger) also leads to an unsatisfactory outcome.
3. Absence of C1, C2, and FI: If none of these codes are present, then by the logic of both statements:
   
   • There is no confirmed danger (C1 or C2),
   • There is no suspected but unconfirmed danger (FI),
   • Therefore, there is no basis for deeming the assessment unsatisfactory.

---

In short:​

• C1, C2, or FI present → Unsatisfactory
• No C1, C2, or FI → Cannot be unsatisfactory

 

[westward10]

Doesn't change the fact it does not say it shall be satisfactory if 1, 2 and FI are not present.

 

[cliffed]

Doesn't change the fact it does not say it shall be satisfactory if 1, 2 and FI are not present.

Agree but if there are no codes only C3 then it would be Satisfactory

 

[westward10]

Agree but if there are no codes only C3 then it would be Satisfactory

There is no single answer to that.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Doesn't change the fact it does not say it shall be satisfactory if 1, 2 and FI are not present.

In the context of the statements from the model form, that is the only logical outcome.

 

[cliffed]

In the context of the statements from the model form, that is the only logical outcome.

• Therefore, there is no basis for deeming the assessment unsatisfactory.

 

[Brother Blue]

• Therefore, there is no basis for deeming the assessment unsatisfactory.

that is an AI generated answer to the question so is worthless.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

that is an AI generated answer to the question so is worthless.

I would judge it on its merits, rather than prejudging it solely on the fact that it is AI generated. The logical steps it has provided are as sound as they can be, given that the statements it was provided with are slightly contradictory.