- Reaction score
- 4,241
Normally I would use the Electrical Safety First Guidance Note 4 for industry-backed guidance on EICR coding issues.
However, in this instance, there is conflicting guidance between the latest guidance and the previous guidance when it comes to FI codes. This is not at all helpful!
In BPG4 Issue 5 it clearly states that circuits that are not identified and not readily traced would warrant an FI.
Then you get this, directly copied from BPG4 Issue 6:
"FI - Further investigation required without delay.
In a domestic or similar installation, it should
generally be possible to attribute a Classification Code to each observation without the need for further investigation.
No examples of FI codes applicable for domestic and similar installations are given in this guide.
The purpose of periodic inspection, as previously stated, is not to carry out a fault-finding exercise, but to assess and report on the condition of an installation within the agreed extent and limitations of the inspection. Therefore, where an observation can be attributed a Classification Code, further investigation would not be required for the purposes of completing the condition report.
Further investigation should be called for in respect of any observation that could reasonably be expected to reveal danger or potential danger.
Further investigation should not be called for simply because it would be ‘nice to know' – for example, why a socket-outlet is unearthed.
If an observation cannot be attributed a
Classification Code due to reasonable doubt as to whether danger or potential danger exists, the outcome of the assessment must be reported to be unsatisfactory.
The person ordering the report should be advised that the inspection and/or testing has revealed a potential safety issue which could not, due to the agreed extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully determined, and that the issue should be investigated as soon as possible."
However, in this instance, there is conflicting guidance between the latest guidance and the previous guidance when it comes to FI codes. This is not at all helpful!
In BPG4 Issue 5 it clearly states that circuits that are not identified and not readily traced would warrant an FI.
Then you get this, directly copied from BPG4 Issue 6:
"FI - Further investigation required without delay.
In a domestic or similar installation, it should
generally be possible to attribute a Classification Code to each observation without the need for further investigation.
No examples of FI codes applicable for domestic and similar installations are given in this guide.
The purpose of periodic inspection, as previously stated, is not to carry out a fault-finding exercise, but to assess and report on the condition of an installation within the agreed extent and limitations of the inspection. Therefore, where an observation can be attributed a Classification Code, further investigation would not be required for the purposes of completing the condition report.
Further investigation should be called for in respect of any observation that could reasonably be expected to reveal danger or potential danger.
Further investigation should not be called for simply because it would be ‘nice to know' – for example, why a socket-outlet is unearthed.
If an observation cannot be attributed a
Classification Code due to reasonable doubt as to whether danger or potential danger exists, the outcome of the assessment must be reported to be unsatisfactory.
The person ordering the report should be advised that the inspection and/or testing has revealed a potential safety issue which could not, due to the agreed extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully determined, and that the issue should be investigated as soon as possible."
