Review of EICR

[lass_lost]

Dear all professional electricians
This is the report we were sent by our seller. Does this report look okay, especially the readings. If anything is missing I would be grateful if you could point it out.

Thanks

 

[James]

I think you should get your own report done, that looks wrong to me.

 

[littlespark]

Couple of things stand out.

61009 is not a suitable main protective device type.

Mainswitch rating is stated as 100V as well as 100A. Should be 230V

Every measured Zs is exactly the same. (0.68 ohms) This should be different for every circuit….

His C3 coding at the beginning mentions putting surge protection in, but his circuit schedule has a surge device ticked as being present.


Looks like a rush job to me….

Do you know how long they were in the property for?

 

[cireland]

It's also down as a D.C. supply. TN-C-S wjth an earth mat?
There is quite a lot wrong with ir.

 

[PS Electrics]

Dear all professional electricians
This is the report we were sent by our seller. Does this report look okay, especially the readings. If anything is missing I would be grateful if you could point it out.

This report is worthless as per the replies given above. I am suspecting this is a copy and paste job with bits left in from a previous report. ie Earth Mat for details of the Electrode when it is already stated it is TN-C-S and earthing is supplied by the distributer and Earth Electrode is N/A.

As other have said DC for the supply? 100V main Switch and it is apparently only 1 pole.

As stated above readings all the same on different circuits?

Could go on.

 

[westward10]

IR test voltage is quoted as 200 but probably should be 250.
No RCBO readings or types, assuming they are 61009.
No ring final readings.
I suspect the protective devices are 6ka not 10ka.
Has confirmed phase sequence when it is probably single phase.

 

[littlespark]

The list of mistakes is getting longer.

I did notice the IR was “200” on some and “>200” on others, which is more likely. Pointed out by westward above


Also, out of interest, was the overall outcome marked as “SATISFACTORY”? Which is what a single C3 would bring about?


Without being on site ourselves, we can’t say how good the installation actually is, but it’s a sure thing that the report itself is a load of rubbish.

 

[westward10]

According to the schedule circuit 3 is spare with a missing cover, Code 2?

 

[littlespark]

I think we now wait for OP to return.


It’s getting to be a weekly occurrence, someone comes on here with a dodgy EICR.

 

[lass_lost]

Couple of things stand out.

61009 is not a suitable main protective device type.

Mainswitch rating is stated as 100V as well as 100A. Should be 230V

Every measured Zs is exactly the same. (0.68 ohms) This should be different for every circuit….

His C3 coding at the beginning mentions putting surge protection in, but his circuit schedule has a surge device ticked as being present.


Looks like a rush job to me….

Do you know how long they were in the property for?

Thank you for your inputs.
SPD: 61009 is not suitable. Should it be BS60947?
Mainwitch current rating: should it be 100 A & voltage raring should it be 230 V?

Measured Zs: Is this under schedule of circuit & test results? There are different Z values there. About SPD, thank you for that. I didn't even realise it.

This electrician is NICEIC registered. Im not sure how long was the inspection.

We are very frustrated, since this is the second electrician called for inspection. The first one was NAPIT registered & apparently there were glaring faults in that report too. We have a disabled wheelchair bound child at home & we need peace of mind that electrics are safe in the house. But the certified, registered electricians are now coming up with reports as work of art, very subjective to interpretation. The earlier electrician produced the report as follows

 

[lass_lost]

It's also down as a D.C. supply. TN-C-S wjth an earth mat?
There is quite a lot wrong with ir.

It should be AC supply, right? This is the second report commissioned, NICEIC registered electrician.

The earlier NAPIT registered electrician produced this report: AC supply 1 phase (2 wire)

 

[lass_lost]

This report is worthless as per the replies given above. I am suspecting this is a copy and paste job with bits left in from a previous report. ie Earth Mat for details of the Electrode when it is already stated it is TN-C-S and earthing is supplied by the distributer and Earth Electrode is N/A.

As other have said DC for the supply? 100V main Switch and it is apparently only 1 pole.

As stated above readings all the same on different circuits?

Could go on.

I am feeling so let down.

This is the second guy doing report. Both registered.

How do I find a competent guy?

 

[Tom256]

His C3 coding at the beginning mentions putting surge protection in, but his circuit schedule has a surge device ticked as being present.

A type 1 SPD which, if such was required on this installation, would also need a type 2 device

 

[lass_lost]

IR test voltage is quoted as 200 but probably should be 250.
No RCBO readings or types, assuming they are 61009.
No ring final readings.
I suspect the protective devices are 6ka not 10ka.
Has confirmed phase sequence when it is probably single phase.

According to the schedule circuit 3 is spare with a missing cover, Code 2?

Thank you for your inputs. This is the second report commissioned. To be honest I'm still trying to make sense of what you all have written, grateful for the feedback. Though I am frustrated that certified electricians can be so incompetent. This is the CU pic, not sure if this can help make some sense of the report.

Also, possible C2, that's concerning! :-(

 

[lass_lost]

The list of mistakes is getting longer.

I did notice the IR was “200” on some and “>200” on others, which is more likely. Pointed out by westward above


Also, out of interest, was the overall outcome marked as “SATISFACTORY”? Which is what a single C3 would bring about?


Without being on site ourselves, we can’t say how good the installation actually is, but it’s a sure thing that the report itself is a load of rubbish.

Yes, this report says 'Satisfactory'.
Incidentally the earlier report done in Dec 2024, also said 'Satisfactory' though the numbers/readings in the two reports are wildly different. The electrics are 15-16 years old, house built in 2009-10

Westward surmises that it could be C2 since according to the schedule circuit 3 is spare with a missing cover. That would mean potentially dangerous.

 

[Tom256]

SPD: 61009 is not suitable. Should it be BS60947

No the primary protective device details are not correct on that second report you have attached.

What is your general location within England?

 

[lass_lost]

No the primary protective device details are not correct on that second report you have attached.

What is your general location within England?

Im based in Kent.
I have attached two reports, latest one done in Jan 2025 (NICEIC registered) in my original post & in replies another report done in Dec 2024 (NAPIT registered). Seems both are terribly wrong.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Im based in Kent.
I have attached two reports, latest one done in Jan 2025 (NICEIC registered) in my original post & in replies another report done in Dec 2024 (NAPIT registered). Seems both are terribly wrong.

I do feel for you.
You expect a registered electrician to be competent and take some pride in their work.
There has already been alot said about the report, so nothing to add. I agree, it is awfully written and incorrect in many places.

I would talk to my neighbours to get word of mouth recommendations for an electrician. Then, start using the different recommendations you get until you find a keeper.

 

[Tom256]

Im based in Kent.
I have attached two reports, latest one done in Jan 2025 (NICEIC registered) in my original post & in replies another report done in Dec 2024 (NAPIT registered). Seems both are terribly wrong.

Sadly all too common. Once you see such basic errors there is nothing in the rest of the report you can trust.

If I was closer to you I would be prepared to assist. Perhaps someone competent here will be in your location and able to help

 

[Tom256]

The trade bodies appear to have little desire to address these issues.
By not doing so they enable this incompetence and by association smear all other members of these association the same.
Removing the incompetent supports the competent perhaps they should remember this duty.

I am not a member of the NICEIC or NAPIT and would never again want to be so. Membership of such is no indication of competency or integrity.
As I am not a member and by reference to the advice to the public from these bodies and Electricity Safety First that would make persons such as myself to be persons best avoided in matters of electrical reporting.
Funny how it all works these days

 

[littlespark]

The second one you put up (the earlier date) isn’t much better I’m afraid.

How they can get things so wrong is beyond any of us


Unfortunately, to the layman, these lists of BS numbers, measurements, strange combinations of letters and numbers are all very confusing.

 

[lass_lost]

The second one you put up (the earlier date) isn’t much better I’m afraid.

How they can get things so wrong is beyond any of us


Unfortunately, to the layman, these lists of BS numbers, measurements, strange combinations of letters and numbers are all very confusing.

These reports have eroded trust in registered bodies & tradespeople.
We go on websites searching for trust marks and certifications. Our experience with two different electricians show these labels mean nothing. These incompetent electricians should be ashamed, putting lives in danger. I read at least once a month, house burnt to ground due to faulty electrics and lives lost.

And very true, for a layperson, all the readings & numbers do not convey much.
I knew just two things- current has to be AC & Rated current in Supply characteristics can be 80 Amps or 100Amps. Beyond this, I want to defer to the judgement of the qualified electrician.
We are worried if we bring this up with our seller, they will be annoyed, they wouldn't want to give access to another electrician & we will jeopardise our purchase.
Also there is no guarantee that the next electrician won't be a cowboy! Could you please look at this & comment? Is the Spare cover missing for 3?

 

[Tom256]

Could you please look at this & comment? Is the Spare cover missing for 3?

That should read that '3' is a spare way , ie, that point in the consumer unit is not in use.
If no circuit breaker at that position there would be an opening. Any such unused way should therefore have a [suitable] protective 'barrier' in place to prevent a person coming into contact with live parts that lay within the board.
From what I can see the opening is covered with a barrier that would not appear to be easily dislodged and suitable for purpose. The same form of barrier can be seen at other positions in the consumer unit and such has not be raised as an issue.
Would he have replaced the barrier at the time of the inspection? If there was such an opening it should be addressed and not left unchecked.
A length of tape over an opening would not be a suitable 'cover', what you have there would appear to be a barrier intended to be used for the purpose.

 

[Jock from the north]

Dear all professional electricians
This is the report we were sent by our seller. Does this report look okay, especially the readings. If anything is missing I would be grateful if you could point it out.
View attachment 119384
ThanksView attachment 119383View attachment 119382View attachment 119381

There's an awful lot of n/a on the report .2.5 live conductor size and 2.5 cpc size

Dear all professional electricians
This is the report we were sent by our seller. Does this report look okay, especially the readings. If anything is missing I would be grateful if you could point it out.
View attachment 119384
ThanksView attachment 119383View attachment 119382View attachment 119381

Dear all professional electricians
This is the report we were sent by our seller. Does this report look okay, especially the readings. If anything is missing I would be grateful if you could point it out.
View attachment 119384
ThanksView attachment 119383View attachment 119382View attachment 119381

It may have been mentioned previously on post because there are so many bizzare entries on sheet but there are no results for your socket ring continuity. 2.5 cpc for sockets assuming it's twin and earth ?,10ka breaking capacity ?no rcd trip time ,61009 for rcd?the first 2 circuits arnt even rcbos .type of rcd ?rip it up and start again .I've never seen a circuit chart like that before ,if your going to cheat and just take the cover off the board at least make it look believable. I no way am I endorsing drive by testing just seems bizzare almost like the apps went crazy .I was told by a select advisor (there in Scotland) that some electrical bodies are actually using there own staff to check some of these eicrs in London as they suspected as much as 50 percent were completely false.sparkies get copies of previous report and change it slightly without even taking there tester out its case

 

[lass_lost]

That should read that '3' is a spare way , ie, that point in the consumer unit is not in use.
If no circuit breaker at that position there would be an opening. Any such unused way should therefore have a [suitable] protective 'barrier' in place to prevent a person coming into contact with live parts that lay within the board.
From what I can see the opening is covered with a barrier that would not appear to be easily dislodged and suitable for purpose. The same form of barrier can be seen at other positions in the consumer unit and such has not be raised as an issue.
Would he have replaced the barrier at the time of the inspection? If there was such an opening it should be addressed and not left unchecked.
A length of tape over an opening would not be a suitable 'cover', what you have there would appear to be a barrier intended to be used for the purpose.

Thank you Tom for explaining it so well.
When the picture of consumer unit was taken by us, the protective barrier/ cover seemed intact.
Not sure since then if it had come off.
I will check when we move there, that this barrier is safe & looks properly lodged.
Thanks much

 

[lass_lost]

There's an awful lot of n/a on the report .2.5 live conductor size and 2.5 cpc size

It may have been mentioned previously on post because there are so many bizzare entries on sheet but there are no results for your socket ring continuity. 2.5 cpc for sockets assuming it's twin and earth ?,10ka breaking capacity ?no rcd trip time ,61009 for rcd?the first 2 circuits arnt even rcbos .type of rcd ?rip it up and start again .I've never seen a circuit chart like that before ,if your going to cheat and just take the cover off the board at least make it look believable. I no way am I endorsing drive by testing just seems bizzare almost like the apps went crazy .I was told by a select advisor (there in Scotland) that some electrical bodies are actually using there own staff to check some of these eicrs in London as they suspected as much as 50 percent were completely false.sparkies get copies of previous report and change it slightly without even taking there tester out its case

I cannot claim that I understood everything you wrote.
What is RCBOS? And how do you identify that first 2 circuits are or aren't RCBOS

My original post contains the second report commissioned with a registered electrician. We have lost hope that we will find a competent person to do third report for us.
You might be right when you say 50% reports are fake. Where can they access previous report? Is there a portal that they can download past report from?

 

[James]

If you post the first half of your postcode, there may be a member near to you.

 

[Jock from the north]

I cannot claim that I understood everything you wrote.
What is RCBOS? And how do you identify that first 2 circuits are or aren't RCBOS

My original post contains the second report commissioned with a registered electrician. We have lost hope that we will find a competent person to do third report for us.
You might be right when you say 50% reports are fake. Where can they access previous report? Is there a portal that they can download past report from?

Hi a rcbo is a combined mcb and rcd .it looks very similar but has a little test button on it that you press to check it's working .I guess they may search for members that do a very high number of eicrs ,especially for landlords or they may even seek out leasing agents and ask for copies of random eicrs .whether they use there own staff or contract it to a competent member im not sure ,he never went into great detail just said it was a real problem .

 

[Jock from the north]

I cannot claim that I understood everything you wrote.
What is RCBOS? And how do you identify that first 2 circuits are or aren't RCBOS

My original post contains the second report commissioned with a registered electrician. We have lost hope that we will find a competent person to do third report for us.
You might be right when you say 50% reports are fake. Where can they access previous report? Is there a portal that they can download past report from?

A long time ago an incident happened on a site I was on where one of the guys left a live cable dangling from wall,a small child recieved an electric shock and boy did select go to town.they went round nearly every job ,checked up in lofts ,under floors to see if cables were run and secured safely ,checked all test sheets going back weeks and actually made sure results matched up (roughly] to what had been recorded. So they do get involved but that's only when something goes wrong .

 

[littlespark]

There’s circuit charts stuck to the inside of the cover flap on the CU that actually makes more sense than both the reports.

If they can’t even get BS numbers right, then how many other reports across the area have been done wrong?


I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong here, but a copy of all reports are uploaded to the cps such as NIC or NAPIT…. Or is that just EICs?

You’de think they would have people who could spot a mistake just by taking a random sample of results.