EICR's-Unrealistic expectations

[Risteard]

For some time I have been concerned with the unrealistic expectations many punters have on what an EICR can achieve. A particular concern for me, as someone who carries out a lot of EICR's, is that this forum tends to perpetuate that expectation. Many threads offer advise to have an EICR carried out, good advise.....but all too often the line..."An EICR will find any issues with your installation" finishes the post. All too often we read...."an EICR would have picked that up", or "....why wasn't that picked up on an EICR".
Well maybe it would, or maybe it wouldn't.
Lets be clear, on all but very small installations an EICR will only involve removing a percentage of points for inspection, that is standard practice. Typically around 25%. That means 75% of points wont be removed for inspection. So a 1.0mm feeding a twin socket will not be noted if that socket is one of the 75%. There is very good reason for taking a percentage. First the cost and disruption burden would be unacceptable if every item and all wiring was inspected, and secondly the more an installation is disturbed the more likely it is the inspector will introduce faults not previously present.
I have had two instances recently of unrealistic expectations. First was a call from an EICR client complaining that a N load connection on an FCU serving an external pump installation had burnt out, the attending engineer said the fault should have been picked up by myself. The EICR was carried out 18 months ago and the pump had been fully working up till now!!
A second instance was at an IT company, I had arrived to install some sockets, but on isolating the circuit it was found a voltage of 180v N-E was present preventing work proceeding. Not sure what was going on as they decided to abandon the work rather than investigate. But an EICR had been carried out just a month ago (not by me), straight away indignation and threats of lawsuits etc.
They let me see the paperwork, a detailed and well compiled EICR. Clearly there were problems with isolating stuff in a large IT company, and the EICR clearly stated that each DB had been isolated for a limited time, where possible IR tests had been conducted, and then the DB was re-energised and Zs tests carried out on final circuits. That was all that was realistically possible in a company on-line 24hrs. But as final circuits were not individually isolated the above potentially dangerous fault went undetected.
The crux of the matter? When recommending an EICR can we please be realistic. It is NOT going to find every issue.
I suggest..." An EICR would be a good idea, whilst it cannot identify every issue it will give you a good indication of the general condition of your installation, and should highlight any potential dangers and whether remedial work or further investigation is required."
Sorry for the long post but I honestly believe we are creating a rod for our own back.

Hear, hear!

 

[ipf]

Hear, hear!

Here, here, too.
Well said, WP.

 

[Rodders099]

completely agree with OP.
Only thing I’d add, is how important it is to make sure the client knows exactly what you’r testing and noting it down in the “limitations” part of the Cert. This covers your arse and lets them know that I won’t be testing 100% of their installation for £200!!!