EICR - Holding back test results?

[peterhyper]

A customer has asked me to quote for some work and he sent a copy of the EICR that was done a while back. As can be seen, the person who did the eicr is holding back the test results until the C2's have been resolved?

I don't do many EICRs mainly because there are locals doing them too cheap and I'm not prepared to sink to their level, but regardless of whether there are C2s, if I'm being paid to do an EICR then the customers get the full test results regardless of what issues I've found.

Am I missing something?

 

[Dustydazzler]

Very odd

Is this for a rental or something that needs fixing before letting out ?

 

[James]

In my opinion, they have provided half a job, probably for full invoice amount.

I had a similar thing when I was in charge of maintenance at a manufacturing company many years ago.

The testing company claimed it wasn’t worth documenting all the results as it wouldn’t pass until a number of faults had been resolved.

My response at the time was on the lines of, I asked for a report so give me a report. The faults are great to have documented.

It shows you are not making the paperwork up but a real company that has things happen and deals with them in a prompt and correct manner.

Unless the faults make it impossible or dangerous to test the circuits in question I would expect to see them properly documented on the report.

I would not be asking them to quote for remedial work.

 

[Andy78]

This is the exact tactic of a rogue niceic approved contractor in our town. Does a cheap drive by eicr but refuses to issue it, even when paid, until the non existent issues detailed in a cover letter are rectified. All quoted for of course .
It's basically holding the customer to ransom.

The customer should request a refund or the full paperwork or go to trading standards. No messing.

 

[Ian1981]

It’s either rouge tactics to extract money or he’s a moron

 

[telectrix]

he says all circuits have "passed" so why are there C2's?

 

[Deleted account]

It’s either rouge tactics to extract money or he’s a moron

why give an option.

surely he’s both.

 

[James]

Erm,

I have just read the last line of the page.

So is he saying, that he pulled a fuse, saw that it was hard wired with copper wire and then put it back in?
It is not a person with good moral standards I feel.

 

[Strima]

Hopefully the customer hasn't paid for this report yet.

 

[richy3333]

Just carp!

I dont like the scope 'fixed wiring' - so he did the TV aerial also??

'Condition' - 'reasonably good' since when has that been electrical terminology?

Also refers to the EICR as a 'certificate'

 

[snowhead]

It would same as having an MOT on a car and being told it's failed, but not what it's failed on.

 

[ipf]

Erm,

I have just read the last line of the page.

So is he saying, that he pulled a fuse, saw that it was hard wired with copper wire and then put it back in?
It is not a person with good moral standards I feel.

Fuse wire replaced with copper?...….and then he puts the fuse carrier back in place, totally disregarding circuit protection... AND admits to doing it by including it in a report.
Absolute jerk.

 

[Dustydazzler]

It would same as having an MOT on a car and being told it's failed, but not what it's failed on.

Think that is illegal

 

[JK-Electrical]

This is outrageous. It's sharp practices such as this that lower customers' faith in tradesmen and increase suspicion. The customer is being held to ransom. Unacceptable.

In the same circumstances I would have given the customer a copy of the report along with a quotation for the remedial work. Upon completion, I would have issued a minor works or multiple minor works certificate in respect of the remedials. I'm sure that's what you guys would have done too.

 

[EricMark]

I can see the point in not testing any further once a fault is found, as clearly once corrected that circuit will need retesting. But hold back results seems odd, if one has done the test, then publish the results.

I know many inspection and testing people hunt for a fault, as once a fault is found, they can stop testing that circuit. And some of the so called faults have been silly, I went to have a look at a hotel/hostel, and before work started they were given a quote for the work, as each distribution box was opened they identified asbestos, in the main the wadding in the fuse holder, and testing then stopped. However fee did not change even when most of the premises had not been tested.

But asbestos does not generate any codes, so a clean EICR was issued, just a note on each circuit not tested due to asbestos. In that case it would have been better not to have issued an EICR. But if not issued they would not get paid.

I have questioned test results a few times, for example a final ring where the readings showed the volt drop was exceeded, had the fault been raised on first EICR then it would have been reasonable to call back installers, but when found 20 years on, should you claim off installers, or person doing last EICR for not highlighting error? Normal method is to omit results which show volt drop. PFC at mid socket, and PFC at consumer unit means easy to work out, but if you don't record the PFC at mid socket then can't show there was a fault when last tested.

 

[peterhyper]

Thanks all, and I agree with most of the points made. I started questioning myself because regardless of what I've found I still give the customer the test results because that's what they've paid for. Even if I'm unable to test a circuit, I will highlight why on the eicr (not a certificate as the so called spark called it),

It is a rental property and the eicr was done about 10 months ago (clearly the landord wasn't in any rush to sort the issues).

The partially completed eicr probably explains why I don't get many EICRs I quote for (I do a thorough job - they get what they've paid for). I'm sure many sparks do the eicr cheap as often there is often the likelihood of getting work highlighted in the the eicr. I don't give customer discounts in the hope of getting more work out of an eicr, and frankly I don't plan to change.

 

[EricMark]

My PIR (periodic inspection report) as it was called then was in house. So I would at some point need to repair any faults found.

Some times the work load was too high, and one has to consider what work can be contracted out, the EICR or PIR and the in-service inspection and testing of electrical equipment (PAT testing) is an easy job to contract out. Getting a contractor to write a PLC program was much harder.

So we would contract out inspection and testing when work load got high, in the main I was able to correct faults found before they left site, but I hated having contractors in, so many times one seemed to be chasing around correcting their errors. And this is when they knew there was an electrical engineer on site likely to pick up on errors.

Not only electrical errors, I had been pre-warned HSE was to visit, so I warned the contractors saying today follow the rules to the letter, as he will be walking around, I had to remove them from site when caught walking on the edge of a wall to thread cables.

They were it seems unaware they were doing anything wrong, OK when no one looking likely I would have done the same, but is seemed unbelievable they didn't even know what they were doing was wrong.

Once some thing goes wrong, the British bull dog will not let go, what you have been getting away with for years comes back to bite you.

 

[westward10]

If they have submitted an EICR then it is incomplete without a schedule of test results according to BS7671.