Poor EICR report results in prosecution

[UNG]

It will come a time when you have to be a member of a cps to do an EICR, which many people are not, and are perfectly honest doing them.
The membership of a cps does not guarantee non cowboy, as this article shows.

Why, to my knowledge none of the current CPS setups actually assess any individuals competence to carry out an EICR and fill out the certs correctly. If a CPS company has 10 operatives any of those operatives could carry out an EICR under the companies registration but only one or two operatives may actually be competent to do an EICR
This is what makes a mockery of the whole CPS system and then add in the current training methods where 2391's are handed out like confetti to allcomers are no better, the I have a 2391 so I'am competent in I&T without any industry experience is laughable

 

[catdog1121]

Why, to my knowledge none of the current CPS setups actually assess any individuals competence to carry out an EICR and fill out the certs correctly. If a CPS company has 10 operatives any of those operatives could carry out an EICR under the companies registration but only one or two operatives may actually be competent to do an EICR
This is what makes a mockery of the whole CPS system and then add in the current training methods where 2391's are handed out like confetti to allcomers are no better, the I have a 2391 so I'am competent in I&T without any industry experience is laughable

It does seem strange that a one man band has to be fully up to speed and assessed yet a big company can just have one person assessed. They should pick at random an employee and assess that person.. I guess the argument is as the QS they should be checking everything but unless they are onsite how can they check inspection?

When I did my 2391 it was interesting how it seemed everyone was pretty much on par when it came to the theory side. But the practical element seemed to catch people out, the two that went in before me, one ran out of time, the other just walked out after 20mins. The guy I did it with just could not find the third fault. I found all faults without even looking for them just by the process of testing and completed it with about an hour left, I would not say that hand it out like confetti and in my experience more than half failed the practical element, although I thought it was pretty basic... More of an issue is you dont actually even require 2391 or to be part of a CPS to do EICR's, maybe start with the low hanging fruit.

The difficulty for people coming into the industry is even the industry cannot decide categorically what code to give some things like no RCD for lighting circuits. I dont think this fine is going to put many off, if the guy was doing 7 EICR's a day at £100 a pop he is still quids in compared to someone charging £200 and only doing 2 a day, even with a fine. Stroma as far as I am aware are for domestic installers, EICR's should be for EAS only with inspection assessment via the CPS.

 

[pc1966]

The difficulty for people coming into the industry is even the industry cannot decide categorically what code to give some things like no RCD for lighting circuits.

The C3/C2 sort of thing always has some judgment involved as you can't cover every possible situation, and the lack of RCD in one installation might be little risk, but another is very much higher due to the nature of building, quality of installation, etc, etc.

I dont think this fine is going to put many off, if the guy was doing 7 EICR's a day at £100 a pop he is still quids in compared to someone charging £200 and only doing 2 a day, even with a fine.

True, but if it becomes more common to deal with obviously criminal negligence (the no checks / no tests / just copy style) with fines or even jail-time if injuries occur it will help.

That really is the point here: not that a C3 should have been C2 or vice-versa aspect of judgement, but that they simply did not (or could not) do a competent inspection at all.

 

[Lister1987]

What doesn't help is that industry bodies know the industry is broken but couldn't give 2 shits about fixing it; From the start with quals (C&G, EAL - "People are passing exams so it's working"), to employers (focusing on Apprenticeships and chasing that money for the younger Apprentices and shafting the mature students) to CPSs (Taking money and not doing anything to actively oust the trash) to MPs (Not taking on the problem unless money changes hands).

Not 1 point in the chain has anyone accepted things need to improve and actively pushed for change, and those that do, get shot down not only by organisations above but also other sparks, especially when an issue is pointed out and a person is directed to this and advised how to improve, instead of taking it constructively, you're met with knuckledragger troll abuse; case in point; e5 - Like them or not they talk a lot of sense, will actively engage in conversation and have those debates either from an engineering standpoint (dome lid Vs box lid with a stuffing gland drilled through the lid) or a professional standpoint (educational standards, short courses etc) rather than shy away from the issue

 

[telectrix]

What doesn't help is that industry bodies know the industry is broken but couldn't give 2 shits about fixing it; From the start with quals (C&G, EAL - "People are passing exams so it's working"), to employers (focusing on Apprenticeships and chasing that money for the younger Apprentices and shafting the mature students) to CPSs (Taking money and not doing anything to actively oust the trash) to MPs (Not taking on the problem unless money changes hands).

Not 1 point in the chain has anyone accepted things need to improve and actively pushed for change, and those that do, get shot down not only by organisations above but also other sparks, especially when an issue is pointed out and a person is directed to this and advised how to improve, instead of taking it constructively, you're met with knuckledragger troll abuse; case in point; e5 - Like them or not they talk a lot of sense, will actively engage in conversation and have those debates either from an engineering standpoint (dome lid Vs box lid with a stuffing gland drilled through the lid) or a professional standpoint (educational standards, short courses etc) rather than shy away from the issue

a few years ago, a couple of forum members attended elex and showed the niceic blokes some pics of a terrible install by one of their members. the response was to get the end customer to complain before any action was considered.

 

[Zlodej]

Why only 2K?
In Sheffield we have two Electricians which pass anything and one from bradford who does remote certs. As them three pass things nobody competend would they between them two do over 70 percents of certs in bad condition accomodation areas (Firth-Park, Darnal, London Road). If they take 50 pounds for half an hour job, its still worth for them paying the fine every now and then). As the rental agencies here get less dealings this way they would not provide certs to investigations which would inconveniences their landlord clients by calling their properties unsatisfactory. I am not sure whats going on with stroma as it seems like they are are keeping the existing memebers. As I still get to hear about stroma electricians even though its been bought by Napit. Plus Stroma still has ofices in sheffield in the redlight district

 

[SparkySy]

Stroma is no more, it was fully integrated into NAPIT earlier this year. I was a Stroma member for about 7 years and now Napit again! Having been with all of the governing bodies since part p was introduced at some point or another, I can honestly say that all of their technical assessments have been pretty much exactly the same. I cannot understand why and how incompetent people manage to get onto them!

 

[Vortigern]

One of the things that really strikes me about this matter thinking about it is the way the prosecution occurred. This was not a straightforward case of man does bad EICR. It was a contract/consumer law matter. i.e. The (spark?) apparently gave a false report to advantage the vendor. The purchaser acted in reliance of that false report and this is what the guy was prosecuted for. Although usually a report produced cannot be relied upon by a third party. However in this case it was manifestly done for an intended purchaser in effect. This means that he was prosecuted for false representations not negligent electrical work as such. In turn this means that so long as a third party is not involved you are ok?

 

[Grant1987]

One of the things that really strikes me about this matter thinking about it is the way the prosecution occurred. This was not a straightforward case of man does bad EICR. It was a contract/consumer law matter. i.e. The (spark?) apparently gave a false report to advantage the vendor. The purchaser acted in reliance of that false report and this is what the guy was prosecuted for. Although usually a report produced cannot be relied upon by a third party. However in this case it was manifestly done for an intended purchaser in effect. This means that he was prosecuted for false representations not negligent electrical work as such. In turn this means that so long as a third party is not involved you are ok?

I had an issue with a job I installed storage heating contract in that particular area and there were issues with the heaters 4/7 unfortunately the manufacturers made out that I was dirt and useless and case escalated before they had even visited the property. I carried out that job with my high standards as I always do and compliant with BS7671 and also building regs by installing concrete back boards to a couple of heaters which were originally mounted onto wood. The council, manufacturer and myself had all been scrutinised in depth and the fault was found out to be with the manufacturer for the heaters to being faulty and I was commended for my install, certification and professionalism throughout the process. My point is that more councils should spend the time and money to investigate certain installs. Although I knew I had done no wrong it was still an awful experience but it’s what’s needed in our industry more thorough inspections for the cases that get reported

 

[Vortigern]

My point is that more councils should spend the time and money to investigate certain installs.

Rather than the long suffering tax payer foot the bill, I vote the CPS do blitzkreig type testing on installs when notified on a rando basis all over the country. This way we are avoiding the tax burden and the schemes are earning the massive amount of wonga they are trousering from us.

 

[Grant1987]

Rather than the long suffering tax payer foot the bill, I vote the CPS do blitzkreig type testing on installs when notified on a rando basis all over the country. This way we are avoiding the tax burden and the schemes are earning the massive amount of wonga they are trousering from us.

Fair point, I like you’re idea more than mine ?

 

[Intoelectrics]

Stroma is no more, it was fully integrated into NAPIT earlier this year. I was a Stroma member for about 7 years and now Napit again! Having been with all of the governing bodies since part p was introduced at some point or another, I can honestly say that all of their technical assessments have been pretty much exactly the same. I cannot understand why and how incompetent people manage to get onto them!

Agreed, however the sparky in question may well be competent to carry out a proper inspection & test, but decided to either fudge it or just couldn't be arsed to do it properly. It's not uncommon to see this sort of thing, especially those that are open to bribes or monetary gains for little effort.

Again this sort of behaviour can tar the decent sparks with the same brush. For me the fine/punishment received in this case was not severe enough. Judges should make examples of poor tradespeople when opportunities arrive to do so, especially those that work in areas where people's lives maybe at risk.

 

[stevethesparks]

Most of my EICR's in the past took me most of the day, and was generally told how comprehensive my report was. However, in recent times (now retired) working for a colleague who undertakes a lot of EICR's for estate agents, I can see the pressure in time restrictions and trying to keep in with the agents. I suppose the answer is drop them, but easier said that done when its part of your bread and butter.

 

[UNG]

Rather than the long suffering tax payer foot the bill, I vote the CPS do blitzkreig type testing on installs when notified on a rando basis all over the country. This way we are avoiding the tax burden and the schemes are earning the massive amount of wonga they are trousering from us.

None of the current CPS should have any involvement in overseeing EICR's IMO they have had their chance and screwed it up. Time to look at a new system with a single central database of operatives with the necessary competence and a number of years of experience within the industry to carry out EICR's add into this a reporting system where EICR's can be randomly checked and the public can check the validity of an EICR and the person who has done it

Most of my EICR's in the past took me most of the day, and was generally told how comprehensive my report was. However, in recent times (now retired) working for a colleague who undertakes a lot of EICR's for estate agents, I can see the pressure in time restrictions and trying to keep in with the agents. I suppose the answer is drop them, but easier said that done when its part of your bread and butter.

I don't believe the time restrictions of the letting agent would be a valid defence when the stuff hits the fan, the guy doing the quick, cheap EICR is a disposible element of a letting agents business as they ery rarely have loyalty, they will move on to whoever is the cheapest and will do everything they can to distance themselves when you are the one in the dock

 

[Jamie89]

It does seem strange that a one man band has to be fully up to speed and assessed yet a big company can just have one person assessed. They should pick at random an employee and assess that person.. I guess the argument is as the QS they should be checking everything but unless they are onsite how can they check inspection?

When I did my 2391 it was interesting how it seemed everyone was pretty much on par when it came to the theory side. But the practical element seemed to catch people out, the two that went in before me, one ran out of time, the other just walked out after 20mins. The guy I did it with just could not find the third fault. I found all faults without even looking for them just by the process of testing and completed it with about an hour left, I would not say that hand it out like confetti and in my experience more than half failed the practical element, although I thought it was pretty basic... More of an issue is you dont actually even require 2391 or to be part of a CPS to do EICR's, maybe start with the low hanging fruit.

The difficulty for people coming into the industry is even the industry cannot decide categorically what code to give some things like no RCD for lighting circuits. I dont think this fine is going to put many off, if the guy was doing 7 EICR's a day at £100 a pop he is still quids in compared to someone charging £200 and only doing 2 a day, even with a fine. Stroma as far as I am aware are for domestic installers, EICR's should be for EAS only with inspection assessment via the CPS.

So what would you put down say a 40 year old install no IP rated lighting in the bathroom no RCD on the lighting circuit and no RCD on the shower. But with no apparent alteration from original install C3 or C2?

 

[Vortigern]

None of the current CPS should have any involvement in overseeing EICR's IMO

Maybe, maybe not. As far as I am concerned with Stroma and Napit they were not just asking for a cheque and handing out passes. As you no doubt know, if you did not know your onions you did not pass go. As far as slating the schemes, I am not too sure. If you were judging and a guy shows you some EICRS and a 2391 will you judge him competent or not to do EICR? How else would you judge the matter. But yes I agree maybe an independent auditor paid for by the schemes like a uber arching QS???

 

[Zlodej]

In sheffield half of the rental agencies have newer seen a letter from notification authority so unless forced by concils and them having to claim money from dogy sparky they will chose the easy cheap one.

Maybe, maybe not. As far as I am concerned with Stroma and Napit they were not just asking for a cheque and handing out passes. As you no doubt know, if you did not know your onions you did not pass go. As far as slating the schemes, I am not too sure. If you were judging and a guy shows you some EICRS and a 2391 will you judge him competent or not to do EICR? How else would you judge the matter. But yes I agree maybe an independent auditor paid for by the schemes like a uber arching QS???

I find it suspicious that most of the worst sparky's in sheffield seem to have a stroma stickers on their wan. Being with Napit myself I did like the in office exam (and loved their office location), with more then half of mine group being send back to sudies, but stroma does seem to have suspiciously bad record (atleast in Sheffield). Also in order for independent auditor to be objective, It would have to be again chosen by government/council as to remove motivation from passing to be good to customer (CPS) who pays them The problem with that would propably be Crapita or Amey.

 

[123]

a few years ago, a couple of forum members attended elex and showed the niceic blokes some pics of a terrible install by one of their members. the response was to get the end customer to complain before any action was considered.

Pretty sure it's the same with Gas Safe though, it's the customer who has to report the problem

 

[catdog1121]

So what would you put down say a 40 year old install no IP rated lighting in the bathroom no RCD on the lighting circuit and no RCD on the shower. But with no apparent alteration from original install C3 or C2?

Well it would depend if the lighting was in a zone or within easily touching while in the bath. If its on a ceiling and not actually touchable within the bath then does not need to be IP rated, I would probably C3 it though as per Napit code breakers "circuit supplying locations containing a bath or shower no 30ma RCD protection", otherwise would be a C2. Electrical safety first show an example of a recessed light above a bath but outside of zones not being IPX4 as requiring no code and specifically state that coding should be based on compliance with BS7671 not personal preference.

No RCD on the shower is probably a bit more difficult. You could argue C3 or if you read Napit code breakers under omission of an RCD you can just issue a C2 which given its location I personally would say C2 given its location so based on a simple in the head risk assessment...

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Usually it's the other way round....people producing dodgy reports as a means of generating work...

And I've carried out plenty of reports on 35-40 (est) installations where, apart from the odd shared neutral from time to time, the fixed wiring has visually and electrically tested ok...
More often than not it'll be the fire, IP and discrimination of the board that'll tug it...plus absence of any RCDs...