A very poor excuse. If anything doing the dead tests would have been a good opportunity to rectify the 'poor state' for minimal effort.
- Thread starter Butch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- completed inspection regarding
looking at the report in which is done on a pc or similar so the amount of the above does not come to the consideration then. and to do the cert & testing ,it the way you are defending your self considering you want the test cert for the building control .
Can you post a picture of your consumer unit without the front on?
Buzz, apologies, but I have no idea what you are talking about, what do you mean I am defending myself? In what way, defending myself about what? The inspection failed due to issues with the installation, that's absolutely fine, if it's dangerous I want to know, my family live in this house, that's the whole point of an inspection report isn't it?
I don't understand what this means "looking at the report in which is done on a pc or similar so the amount of the above does not come to the consideration then. "?
...or this "and to do the cert & testing ,it the way you are defending your self considering you want the test cert for the building control ."
I think you might be misunderstanding, my query wasn't that it failed, my query is that the guy quoted me for an Inspection Report which includes Dead testing the system, he didn't perform the Dead testing, so why am I still paying for it. The other query I had was why did the whole system have to be re-tested after the remedial work, why wasn't the items that failed just re-tested...I can't see any where where I am defending myself, I'm just trying to understand the whole process by asking the experts as I am getting very vague answers from the guy that did the work.
Hi rolyberkin, I am also intrigued, however, it would mean disconnecting the electrics in the garage and then removing the case, don't fancy doing that now, however, if I'm home from work early enough tomorrow I certainly will do.
Wish I had read that sooner! Damn, I've just transferred him the full amount, I decided in the end just to write the £200 off as a bad experience, even though I don't have that kind of spare cash to just splash out thought it would be easier as I didn't really have a clue how long a dead test takes.
you have done some work butch, It is down to the inspector at the time to give a sat or unsat on the test cert .I'm not defending the said spark .looking at the test cert I seen it . you are now in a predicament .whether to speak to him and get the work passed or request another spark to do the work and pass it .
Sorry Butch, strange that the price wasn’t mentioned all though the thread.
Hope it all goes well from now on.
Work with a good spark that you trust.
If you have the ‘nextdoor’ app Where you are ask for recommendations. I’M not even going to mention the amount of threads mentioning ‘trusted trader’ it’ll only wind you up!
Hope it all goes well from now on.
Work with a good spark that you trust.
If you have the ‘nextdoor’ app Where you are ask for recommendations. I’M not even going to mention the amount of threads mentioning ‘trusted trader’ it’ll only wind you up!
N
Nigel
Sounds like a nightmare customer to me. Done a poor job trying to save himself a few quid. Wants an electrician to bail him out with certification and now does not like what he is reading so threatening not to pay him.
Should have got a sparks in from the start. Your family will be living in that house.
Should have got a sparks in from the start. Your family will be living in that house.
N
Nigel
It is not the testers fault your installation is so poor he cannot test. You got quotes and went with cost over competence. That is your choice and you need to live with it. What he earns in two hours is none of your concern. Would you have paid him more if it took him longer?
one did try and tell him .
There's absolutely no way I'd be correcting the order of neutral and cpc connections as part of an EICR. Remedial works are completely separate. Also R1+R2 testing wouldn't be entertained - I'd verify cpc continuity through live testing as the installation is already energised.
LOL...I've been surprised I've had to wait this long for a generalisation like this, there is always one, thank you, you haven't disappointed, it's taken you a while but you are here at last.
Just to clarify, I am perfectly happy to pay him, that isn't the dispute, it failed, that's fine, however, like most people, I don't like paying for something that I was originally quoted for that hasn't been done, he quoted me for a full inspection which he hasn't done.
However, I take heart in the responses from your fellow electricians who have been nothing but decent, helpful and informative professionals...not someone who comes jumping in with both left feet and embarrasses themselves by jumping to the wrong conclusions
.
Last edited:
Wow, you and Buzz stick out a mile from your fellow professionals in your attitude, you probably know the guy who did my inspection!
Joking aside, in response to your comment "It is not the testers fault your installation is so poor he cannot test."...totally agree, of course it isn't, however, in the world I live in, people pay for the actual work carried out or is it different in your world?
"You got quotes and went with cost over competence."...yes I agree, although I'm not entirely sure it was incompetence, I wouldn't like to accuse the guy of not being good at his job as I have no idea, it might be what you are portraying, a bitterness towards people that try and do the electrics themselves.
"What he earns in two hours is none of your concern."...it is when I'm paying him for 3 when he has only worked 2!
D
Darkwood
That would be your choice but on the same note I wouldn't omit dead tests because they are incorrectly ordered unless wired in singles that would need a bit of time to trace out, like I said, it takes no time at all given your already doing dead tests to just correct the order and it comes across in a positive light when you pass on to the customer you have resolved one of the issues, to me it makes good business sense and it's little things like that that gets your name out there.. I have never needed to advertise in my 10yrs self employed, I would say that that is partly to do with my business attitude and professional approach, I not saying you are wrong here so don't take that from it, I just find my approach works very well.
N
Nigel
So you employed someone and never even checked their competence? Wow!
Your post, with respect only highlights how clueless you are to how electricians do things.
You have paid him to do a report. You have not paid him to do three hours work. You have a report and it may or may not be worth the paper it is written on and that can be debated. However; whether he takes one hour of seven the price is the price.
Buzz - yes you are right, I need to sort it with either the original spark or get a new one, taking the advice from your fellow pros, I think the wise choice might be getting another one and writing this off as a bad experience. Sounds like most people on here have more interaction with their customers and explain what needs to be done rather than handing over a report and disappearing. It's like any other business, if you want to be successful you have to build a relationship with your customer and not have a grudge which is what I think it is, he would have done us both a favour and turned down the job if he didn't want it.
I'll try to make this as clear as possible...the service I required was an EICR, obviously, the EICR consists of the electrician carrying out a set procedures, lets say for example, the governing body created this report that consisted of 50 checks. So, lets try to make this clearer, so instead of saying to an electrician I want an EICR report, lets say I want 50 checks to be carried out. He turns to me and says, I will charge you £200 to carry out those 50 checks, this forms a verbal agreement. When the electrician only carries out say 30 of those checks say, I don't expect to pay for 50! The time issue was only mentioned to reinforce what I was saying, your fellow colleagues seemed to understand that.
Being from the 'other-side', as a customer I completely and utterly agree with what you are saying. Someone with your attitude are like gold dust, very difficult to find (no matter what the trade). Being the father of a son who also runs his own business, again I couldn't agree more with what you say, part of running a successful business is building that relationship with a customer and little things that make you stand out from the average go a long way. If you have that attitude, I think the only thing that can stop you being very successful is ones own ambition.
What dead tests would you carry out during periodic inspection and testing? Insulation resistance is the only one I would do (assuming that the installation could be de-energised for the test) and would not be with individual circuits but the installation in parallel as required by BS7671. I don't see any reason to be disturbing connections in the DB - although I would be checking tightness of terminals.
Correcting any defects is not the purpose of periodic inspection and testing and is not something I would do. It would be quoted separately as a completely separate job.
Hi Rpa07, no worries, I didn't want any bad feelings between us and the electrician although I did say I wasn't completely happy with the service I received from him. Off to try and find a decent sparky again...thanks again for your help.
What dead tests would you carry out during periodic inspection and testing? Insulation resistance is the only one I would do (assuming that the installation could be de-energised for the test) and would not be with individual circuits but the installation in parallel as required by BS7671. I don't see any reason to be disturbing connections in the DB - although I would be checking tightness of terminals.
Correcting any defects is not the purpose of periodic inspection and testing and is not something I would do. It would be quoted separately as a completely separate job
I'm afraid you are misinformed.
There is no set procedure for what should and shouldn't be included in the inspection. That is all down to what is agreed between the client and the customer. This is precisely why there are "extent" and "limitations" boxes included within these forms.
.
A bit disappointed I missed this thread earlier so I could have my input, but here it is anyway.
I've got to agree wth Essex on this one. I'm actually quite suprised he is in a minority.
If I went to do an EICR and found an installation to be in such a mess as would make it near impossible to do all the testing until it was sorted I would test what I could then issue the report.
I would state a recommendation for works to tidy up the board, but it's not the job of the inspector to do this during the inspection.
If the board was only changed recently I would recommend getting the previous installer back to put it right.
I certainly wouldn't be very happy if my money was with held unjustly.
I've got to agree wth Essex on this one. I'm actually quite suprised he is in a minority.
If I went to do an EICR and found an installation to be in such a mess as would make it near impossible to do all the testing until it was sorted I would test what I could then issue the report.
I would state a recommendation for works to tidy up the board, but it's not the job of the inspector to do this during the inspection.
If the board was only changed recently I would recommend getting the previous installer back to put it right.
I certainly wouldn't be very happy if my money was with held unjustly.
There is a "schedule of inspections" which looks to me like a list of items that need to be carried out where possible. There are obviously limitations to what he can actually tick off on the list as being tested/checked, for example, "cables correctly supported through out their length" or "installed in prescribed zones" which unless the electrician had x-ray vision couldn't possible know. The only thing I know, was that I engaged with an electrician to perform an inspection report, he did not discuss the limitations or extent with me, he did not make me aware of what he was doing or what he couldn't do, all I know is that I paid for an inspection, if these dead tests aren't part of the inspection then great, I'm happy to pay him the full amount, however I don't think this is the case and that the dead tests are part of the inspection report, he didn't say they were, but in the same instance he didn't say they weren't and by the fact he stated he was apparently unable to do them implies they were part of it.
So you agree with essex, I'm a nightmare customer and with holding money, firstly thank you for your insult. Secondly, bad electricians whose attitudes stink also exist as well as nightmare customers, so it's good of you to read the whole thread objectively. Thirdly, the service I felt was poor, with regards taking time off work and being told he couldn't make it, to lack of communication whereby he wrote on the report "customer has been informed" when no such conversation had taken place, and on top of that charging me for the dead tests which he hadn't performed. I have paid him the full invoice as I don't want any bad feelings yet I am the customer from hell and he's a sparky who we all know are saints.
Sorry you feel that way butch. Just giving my opinion.
I have made no comment about the Sparks lack of communication or the taking time of work issue as I was relaying my opinion on the work actually carried out. The EICR.
I have also not commented on any sparks attitude or have I claimed anyone is a nightmare customer.
I have made no comment about the Sparks lack of communication or the taking time of work issue as I was relaying my opinion on the work actually carried out. The EICR.
I have also not commented on any sparks attitude or have I claimed anyone is a nightmare customer.
Hi Pete, essex said I was a nightmare customer, when you said you agree with essex, then obviously the implication is that you think I am a nightmare customer. However, I don't take it personally, so no worries.
we now must draw a line under this post Pee pee, cause thier is a lesson learned for the op .
Sorry butch, I accept the implication with me agreeing with Essex would justify you thinking this. I should have been a bit more clear. My agreeing with Essex is only so far as works.
As I said Pete, no worries, thanks for your input.
Again, this is a lack of understanding on your part. Many parts of the Schedule of Inspections may not be relevant to your installation, and as already made clear it is all subject to the extent and limitations. There aren't really mandatory parts to a periodic inspection. Essentially determining that disconnection times can be met for ADS to operate effectively is the main goal, which is down to live testing. (Again, subject to extent and limitations - e.g. this may be a percentage in a larger installation rather than the entire installation.)
N
Nigel
Deary me. You are clueless. I was right - nightmare customer.
Late to the party but thought I'd have my say too ...
It strikes me that there is a lack of understanding or misunderstanding between the OP and the inspector on what should or was agreed to be dome, or not done? Taking at face value what the OP says (no reason to disbelieve him) he wanted a full inspect and test, but didn't get it? No mention has been made of the inspector issuing any T&C's or covering correspondence string what would and wouldn't be done?
GN3 at 3.8.3 states at the very beginning of the section: 'NOTE: The following advice is not applicable to domestic or simple installations as the extent and method of inspection and testing is rudimentary in such installations in comparison with more complex installations'. Therefore the remainder of the advice is targeted at complex installations where for example it might not be possible to turn the power off etc.
I would therefore draw from the IET statement that a complete suite of tests (dead and live) should be done in a domestic situation unless there is good cause not to do so )or for some reason it has been agreed with the customer not to do something?. (The only example that springs to mind is on an old 3086 CU where the copper screw heads were so mashed up we couldn't undo the conductor(s) to test. Just my opinion but the conductors being out of sync is not a good cause to NOT dead test.
It's inspecting and testing so I wouldn't be repairing stuff as I go unless it something that warrants a C1 code. I'd fix it if there client agreed or else issue a danger notice to cover myself.
I get the impression that the inspector may not be the greatest communicator and also be too inexperienced to undertake this type of work. GN3 at 3.8.1 says ' It is important that the competency of the person carrying out the periodic inspection and test is of the appropriate level having gained sufficient education, experience and knowledge to be fully conversant with the aspects required of carrying out such an important inspection'.
Personally I wouldn't have paid the invoice but then again I would not I&T a house for that sum of money. If the OP cant get any joy from the inspector he should speak to the NICEIC. It's not known if this person is a 'domestic installer (DI)' or an Approved Contractor. I also don't know if the NICEIC guarantee scheme includes DI, but there's the possibility of making a claim under the scheme?
Just my thoughts.
...It strikes me that there is a lack of understanding or misunderstanding between the OP and the inspector on what should or was agreed to be dome, or not done? Taking at face value what the OP says (no reason to disbelieve him) he wanted a full inspect and test, but didn't get it? No mention has been made of the inspector issuing any T&C's or covering correspondence string what would and wouldn't be done?
GN3 at 3.8.3 states at the very beginning of the section: 'NOTE: The following advice is not applicable to domestic or simple installations as the extent and method of inspection and testing is rudimentary in such installations in comparison with more complex installations'. Therefore the remainder of the advice is targeted at complex installations where for example it might not be possible to turn the power off etc.
I would therefore draw from the IET statement that a complete suite of tests (dead and live) should be done in a domestic situation unless there is good cause not to do so )or for some reason it has been agreed with the customer not to do something?. (The only example that springs to mind is on an old 3086 CU where the copper screw heads were so mashed up we couldn't undo the conductor(s) to test. Just my opinion but the conductors being out of sync is not a good cause to NOT dead test.
It's inspecting and testing so I wouldn't be repairing stuff as I go unless it something that warrants a C1 code. I'd fix it if there client agreed or else issue a danger notice to cover myself.
I get the impression that the inspector may not be the greatest communicator and also be too inexperienced to undertake this type of work. GN3 at 3.8.1 says ' It is important that the competency of the person carrying out the periodic inspection and test is of the appropriate level having gained sufficient education, experience and knowledge to be fully conversant with the aspects required of carrying out such an important inspection'.
Personally I wouldn't have paid the invoice but then again I would not I&T a house for that sum of money. If the OP cant get any joy from the inspector he should speak to the NICEIC. It's not known if this person is a 'domestic installer (DI)' or an Approved Contractor. I also don't know if the NICEIC guarantee scheme includes DI, but there's the possibility of making a claim under the scheme?
Just my thoughts.
Just to explain. I gave you a 'disagree' about this post. It's nothing personal (honestly) but how anyone can maintain a viable business at those sort of rates I really dont know.
Only if you ignore the statement in GN3 that cpc continuity can be verified through live loop testing. Dead testing for cpc continuity is designed to ensure that the installation is not energised with unearthed parts. This caution is no longer necessary when the installation is already energised, as any potential danger already exists.
Dead testing may be useful for ensuring that exposed conductive parts are earthed where it is difficult to disconnect these for Zs testing. In this instance it would be R2 testing and not R1+R2 testing. (Think of a heavy chandelier or whatever.)
In this part of the world I'm considered to be middle of the road on pricing as far as I can tell.
I don't do many EICRs because normally it's a full day around the £240 mark. Most people are getting them in 2/3 hours for £80-£120. I can't compete with that because I like to be thorough so I can sleep at night.
In this case it's a bit of a favour for a forum member who needed one quick, so I figure karma will pay me back at some point in the future
D
Darkwood
Firstly I was commenting in the context of the thread 'domestic' so I have very rarely ever seen a reason not do a full compliment of tests, I would though agree that commercial and industrial can be somewhat of a challenge if they are a mess and this would impact on testing time thus I would discuss with the customer but domestic is seriously not going to be a big issue of putting the cores back in the correct order once you have tested.
How would you ensure without removing cpc from its terminal that one is not picking up parallel paths?, when doing R2 or R1+R2, you are ensuring that the earthing for that particular circuit is not broken, damaged or high resistance etc, measuring ELI when energised only proves an earth path exists but it doesn't confirm the integrity or the circuit earth itself, think boiler supply where an earth path may be present through the pipework itself even if the boiler supply earth was broken.
Patronise, eh?.Putting this to bed now guys...thanks for all your assistance and help with my queries, you have been complete pros even essex and buzz who took time out to patronise me
People seem to jump to conclusions an awful lot. I like to see things from all sides before offering advice on an issue of which I don't personally know all the ins and outs.
There could be much more involved, from both sides. Things look a bit iffy from the contractor's side with the info put forward but the full facts are not known. We are receiving info from a source unknown to us...info which indicates the OP carrying out electrical installation and/or alterations to his own property. Is he competent to carry out this work? Well, it seems not if no initial certificate was produced. He mentions family safety, following the EICR....what about prior to it, following the work carried out?
I am not jumping to conclusions... I've seen plenty 'being led down the wrong path' following such 'leaping'.
By the way, I don't see what trades persons being 'complete pros' has to do with offering free advice.
Last edited:
Certainly there may be parallel paths. However you should remember that you are specifically advised not to unnecessarily dismantle and reassemble the installation as this is more likely to introduce faults than to find them. I would state with absolute confidence that (R1+R2) testing is almost always wholly inappropriate for periodic inspection and testing. (It can be useful if there is no supply - e.g. Economy 7 or a de-energised installation or whatever.)
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
Advert
Advert
Thread statistics
Advert
TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server
-
-
Understanding TrueNAS JBOD Servers: A Comprehensive Guide- Started by Dan
- Replies: 8
-
