Updated best practice guide #4

[pc1966]

Folks it seems that we now have Issue 7 of the BPG#4 on EICR. Trying to compare them shows only minor changes, but those of note are:

Page 9
Note: The use of photographic evidence in ‘remarks’ column of the test schedule. relation to the observations noted would be advantageous.

Page 14
It strongly recommended that the information in this guide - and particularly this section on classification codes - is followed. Where not, the inspector must provide evidence to fully justify why they have deviated from it. The inspector’s own judgement as a competent person should not be unduly influenced by the person ordering the work. The person(s) signing the report are fully responsible for its content and accuracy.

 

[oscar21]

Who on earth are "Electrical safety first" and what on earth is "Obs" and "NC only"when it comes to codes.

Yet more gobbledygook.

 

[westward10]

Why must an inspector provide evidence to fully justify why they deviated from it, what's it got to do with them.

 

[James]

The way I read it is that it is intended to prevent customers persuading inspectors to class something (for instance) as a C3 instead of C2

And in my case the evidence to fully justify deviating from the BPG would be that I have read and interpreted the wiring regulations and my professional opinion is what it is.
obviously it would be backed up by referencing the particular reg.

the wording is poor, because we should provide evidence to justify our coding of anything, the evidence being either a test result or simply a cross reference to the regulations.

 

[oscar21]

But nothing is set in law of what you can and cant code, if I class a wonky label on the consumer as a C1 then its no-one elses business apart from the miffed off person paying me.

 

[James]

But nothing is set in law of what you can and cant code, if I class a wonky label on the consumer as a C1 then its no-one elses business apart from the miffed off person paying me.

If I was the miffed off person in that particular circumstance, I would be taking you to court and questioning your professional opinion whilst seeking recompense for whatever i had paid you for the Carp report.
however i get your point. the inspectors decision is final on all reports.
As an inspector though, we need to be able to justify our decisions and conclusions.

 

[oscar21]

If I was the miffed off person in that particular circumstance, I would be taking you to court and questioning your professional opinion whilst seeking recompense for whatever i had paid you for the Carp report.
however i get your point. the inspectors decision is final on all reports.
As an inspector though, we need to be able to justify our decisions and conclusions.

Only to the customer though or maybe a court if our advice goes horribly wrong. Not to some random charity that has set themselves up as some kind of pseudo authority, they can go swivel.

 

[timhoward]

It's not fantastic wording but I get the point.
This is one of the few documents that IET, NECIEC and NAPIT all put their name to, giving general advice what a situation is likely to be classed as. I read the above to say that there's nothing wrong with asking for justification of something that seems to differ to the guide. Anyone competent would have already thought through that justification anyway so there's no real problem.

Given the amount of opportunistic EICR report writing that goes on I'm all for educating customers a bit.
I see it as being in everyone's interests if more inspections were done without the customer fearing being taken to the cleaners because someone fancies installing a new metal board with SPD and AFDDs.

 

[pc1966]

Who on earth are "Electrical safety first" and what on earth is "Obs" and "NC only"when it comes to codes.

Well the serve a useful purpose in providing guidance the the general public - something that the IET/NICEIC/etc generally don't do, and they serve to provide the BPG booklets that at least offer some consistency over the multiple "competent persons" organisations that all have their own take on guidance.

We see on here a lot of questions about EICR coding so clearly it is needed, and the #4 guide is fairly readable and sensible. I do think the earlier format was more readable though, but I can see the reason for colour-coding to make it simpler for the public who might not grasp the technicalities of each case.

Beyond the BPG stuff they also provide help to the public about safety recalls, dangers of fake chargers, and similar stuff.

Edit: You have actually read the BPG#4 ? The reason for asking is "Obs" and "NC only" is defined at the bottom of page 10.

 

[DPG]

Who on earth are "Electrical safety first" and what on earth is "Obs" and "NC only"when it comes to codes.

Yet more gobbledygook.

Google them. They are very well known and do a lot of good work.

 

[pc1966]

Why must an inspector provide evidence to fully justify why they deviated from it, what's it got to do with them.

I think their point is for most cases the BPG#4 classification is in agreement with the obvious interpretation of the wiring regulations, but if you find a situation where you judge the code to be different you need to explain why.

I guess the most common example is the lack (or incorrect type) of RCD - generally that is going to be C3 or C2 depending on the risk presented by what circuit it protects.

 

[pc1966]

I would also add that the new note about photographic evidence seems to me to be something that all of the professional bodies should have been insisting on for years. Yes, a bummer if trying to us paper forms only, but these days with practically every phone having a camera it is easy to do, and then a "drive by" ECIR that lacks any photos, or has fraudulently used some other ones, is an easy prosecution.

Also if anyone posts an ECIR here for comments there is a photo of the CU (outside and inside) to make further comments easy!

 

[westward10]

I think their point is for most cases the BPG#4 classification is in agreement with the obvious interpretation of the wiring regulations, but if you find a situation where you judge the code to be different you need to explain why.

I guess the most common example is the lack (or incorrect type) of RCD - generally that is going to be C3 or C2 depending on the risk presented by what circuit it protects.

Nowhere in the suggested format from BS7671 does it suggest that if you have a differing opinion to this Guide that you must explain why.

 

[pc1966]

Nowhere in the suggested format from BS7671 does it suggest that if you have a differing opinion to this Guide that you must explain why.

Other way round.
You should justify any EICR coding in terms of how it departs from BS7671 in terms of safety. The BPG simply has a list of pre-justified cases based on industry guidance, if your situation is not adequately covered (by those cases) then they are simply asking you give those details.

 

[westward10]

Other way round.
You should justify any EICR coding in terms of how it departs from BS7671 in terms of safety. The BPG simply has a list of pre-justified cases based on industry guidance, if your situation is not adequately covered (by those cases) then they are simply asking you give those details.

I know you justify it against BS7671, something I have learnt in 30 years of testing. Any competent person is almost certainly going to give comparative Codes as suggested by this Guide but you are not required to give a reason if your opinion differs.

 

[davesparks]

I would also add that the new note about photographic evidence seems to me to be something that all of the professional bodies should have been insisting on for years. Yes, a bummer if trying to us paper forms only, but these days with practically every phone having a camera it is easy to do,

I'd say it is actually not that easy to do at all, unless you are filling the report in directly on site via software or an app which allows you to add the photos in real time.
I'm sure I can't be the only person who uses paper and pen on site and then writes up the report later.

Photographs can sometimes be helpful when carrying out remedials as they can help find the location that the report is referring to. But only if you know the building well enough to be able to identify a specific room from just a picture of a cracked socket.

Also I think there are probably a lot of issues where a photograph just won't help or actually provide any evidence.

 

[pc1966]

I'd say it is actually not that easy to do at all, unless you are filling the report in directly on site via software or an app which allows you to add the photos in real time.

I would guess you are only going to do 1-2 ECIR per day at best, so reconciling a handful of photos on your phone with your notes is not too hard.

I'm sure I can't be the only person who uses paper and pen on site and then writes up the report later.

I also do much the same!

I use Electroform on the rare occasion of needing to generate paperwork, and they charge extra credits for photos, i guess someone has to pay for the additional storage on the cloud server.

Photographs can sometimes be helpful when carrying out remedials as they can help find the location that the report is referring to. But only if you know the building well enough to be able to identify a specific room from just a picture of a cracked socket.

Also I think there are probably a lot of issues where a photograph just won't help or actually provide any evidence.

I am not saying the solve all problems, but they serve two really useful purposes:

• They show someone actually attended and opened the CU/DB
• For damage they show the client an example of what needs fixing

So it not a replacement for paper work at all, just a means of raising standards overall.

 

[davesparks]

I would guess you are only going to do 1-2 ECIR per day at best, so reconciling a handful of photos on your phone with your notes is not too hard.

Per day? only a handful of photos? Maybe if all you're doing is domestic work!

 

[pc1966]

I know you justify it against BS7671, something I have learnt in 30 years of testing. Any competent person is almost certainly going to give comparative Codes as suggested by this Guide but you are not required to give a reason if your opinion differs.

You are completely correct but seem to be missing the key point of the BPG#4 document.

You, and probably most of the contributors on this forum, would generate similar codes from following the basic requirements. If a client or NICEIC (or similar) inspector came to you can asked:

"Hi westward10, I see you gave a C1|2|3 code for this, can you tell me why?"

Then I would be willing to bet that you would be able to turn round and answer something along the lines of:

"Thank you for asking, Cardinal Fang, if you see here in BS7671 (latest edition) then clearly item XYZ of this installation is not in compliance with regulation ABC.D.E, this has a safety aspect so it must be coded as Cx and I have given it C1|2|3 because it presents a danger {now}|{for this simple fault scenario}|{for this unusual situation/combination of faults}"

No problem. But you are not really the intended audience of the BPG, and it is intended to help raise safety overall by addressing a few issues:

• Inspectors lacking experience
• Business models of stupidly low "inspection" price, doing SFA, and aiming to make money on unnecessary remedial work and ripping off the clients, leading to less public trust in the industry as a whole
• Owners/landlords pressuring for a "satisfactory" outcome, leading to unsafe insulations being passed

None of the above should exist, but they do, and so the next best option is education of clients and tradespeople of what is typically required.

I suspect that a few folks have misread the BPG#4 as somehow implying their judgement of applying BS7671 is not as good as the guidance, so they need to do better, but my reading is the opposite. What I read is that all coding need to be justifiable if asked, and it is important to read on from that to the point where it says "judgement as a competent person should not be unduly influenced by the person ordering the work" to see the real concern here for an organisation that aims to improve safety. What the BPG#4 does is reduce the occasions when you might be asked for justification.

 

[pc1966]

Per day? only a handful of photos? Maybe if all you're doing is domestic work!

I suspect that domestic is the primary area for BPG#4