what do you think of this EICR ??

[LukeD]

Another classic ....

 

[timhoward]

What do I think?
Well at first glance the testing looks plausible, missing R2 for some circuits but apparently Zs has been done for all.
Ze is 0.11 ohms. But lighting Zs results look low, especially upstairs lighting.

If it's a split load board, the wiring is probably pre 2004, so IR tests are believable, it might be the software that wants ranges not exact values.
On the other hand, I'm confused by the inspection schedule, as clearly all circuits in bathroom don't have RCD protection. So I'm not sure I trust the rest of it.

Presumably you've seen the actual installation, what do you think?

 

[LukeD]

Its the RCD bit that confused me .Thats why i am throwing it out for opinions !

 

[JBW175]

Its the RCD bit that confused me .Thats why i am throwing it out for opinions !

I’d imagine that they’ve just recorded the X5 value and only recorded the result in the RCD box, then not bothered to follow it on down the column.

Maybe from software that auto records results from meter as you test?

 

[timhoward]

Its the RCD bit that confused me .Thats why i am throwing it out for opinions !

It would help to to see the previous pages.
You'd expect to see 6.1 ticked, or 6.4 ticked, or codes. As it stands it doesn't make sense and without more of the report I can't say whether this is a single oversight or indicative of the rest of it.

 

[cliffed]

I would also insert 200 ohms for the Rcd max Zs allowed
Also Rcd should have type/BS etc
R1 + R2 values not necessary on EICR

 

[LukeD]

 

[LukeD]

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Looks 10x better than some we've had on here!

 

[timhoward]

Looks to me like they used a "tick all" button....and didn't undo the ones that make no sense, like the famous RCD for fault protection.

 

[UNG]

Only seeing four pages of the EICR makes it difficult to fully assess it as there is no indication of the age of the installation
As has previously been mentioned it looks like a prefilled cert that has had little or no editing and has not been proof read before being handed to the client

 

[LukeD]

 

[catdog1121]

Looks to me like they used a "tick all" button....and didn't undo the ones that make no sense, like the famous RCD for fault protection.

I always look for that as well as it shows a general lack of understanding..

I hate these automatically generated rubbish EICR's as with their yes to all shortcuts and autofill etc but actually can't see too much wrong with this EICR, I think with the price pressure on an EICR you cant spend 3hrs making sure all of the paperwork is 100% correct however much you would want to.

 

[timhoward]

Well, we only know what we know!
If you take the test results page at face value, then we have an installation which meets requirements for ADS, additional protection is present and working (except lighting circuits) and the wiring itself is in reasonable health.
We don't know (off top of head)
-size and condition of tails, condition of cut-out
-details of supplier fuse
-size of main earthing
-earthing type (though can guess TNCS from the PFC given)
-presence of bonding
-whether the special location is actually ok

If all the above is all ok and there is supplementary bonding in the bathroom then it might indeed all be "Satisfactory".

When I explain EICR certificates to people I say that the last page of test results is more "showing your working" and the important bit is the schedule of inspection. But in this case there isn't really one, it's all "ok", even things that don't exist or are not accurate.
So inconclusive really.

I'm curious @LukeD what your involvement is - are you there for more work, or do you know the owner?

 

[timhoward]

I always look for that as well as it shows a general lack of understanding..

I hate these automatically generated rubbish EICR's as with their yes to all shortcuts and autofill etc but actually can't see too much wrong with this EICR, I think with the price pressure on an EICR you cant spend 3hrs making sure all of the paperwork is 100% correct however much you would want to.

In my view the entire model form should be revised to have a customer-friendly half that they have a hope of understanding.

 

[LukeD]

Well, we only know what we know!
If you take the test results page at face value, then we have an installation which meets requirements for ADS, additional protection is present and working (except lighting circuits) and the wiring itself is in reasonable health.
We don't know (off top of head)
-size and condition of tails, condition of cut-out
-details of supplier fuse
-size of main earthing
-earthing type (though can guess TNCS from the PFC given)
-presence of bonding
-whether the special location is actually ok

If all the above is all ok and there is supplementary bonding in the bathroom then it might indeed all be "Satisfactory".

When I explain EICR certificates to people I say that the last page of test results is more "showing your working" and the important bit is the schedule of inspection. But in this case there isn't really one, it's all "ok", even things that don't exist or are not accurate.
So inconclusive really.

I'm curious @LukeD what your involvement is - are you there for more work, or do you know the owner?

Mate was renting .I am not involved .In fact he says he never even remembers anyone coming to do a test and same for his wife. And no message from landlady asking for access . Its almost as if the EICR was not actually carried out in reality .

 

[LukeD]

Imagine if MOT's certs where like this and no was controlling the scheme etc ! ..peoples homes and lives at risk and its a FN joke

 

[catdog1121]

In my view the entire model form should be revised to have a customer-friendly half that they have a hope of understanding.

I totally agree, however I would say my forms are my own forms, I don't use some auto fill rubbish and the codes that I give I explain them in both the correct manner but also a way that customers can understand, I also provide where appropriate pictures which can be really useful..

I do think the rise of the "quick EICR" on the cheap and using automated software to make things quicker is the total downfall... To my mind any codes should do one of two things, number 1 inform the customer in a language that most should be able to understand what the issue is and why it is dangerous or potentially dangerous in other words what the issue is and why you have flagged it as an issue, number 2 is any electrician coming in after you should be able to understand what circuit you are talking about, exactly where you are talking about and what the issue is.. I have seen codes of "None IP rated accessory where required", if im coming after to fix this issue, ok I might check the bathroom but come on is that really acceptable..

 

[baldelectrician]

Looking at this some obvious querys

• The earth electrode box is ticked
• There appears to be a SPD present
• The inspector has x ray vision as he or she can see below floors, above ceilings etc
• The consumer unit is metal and complies to the recent regs
• There appears to be a PV / generation system that connects to the grid
• There ALSO appears to be a PV / generation system that DOES NOT CONNECT TO THE GRID

I would be asking questions.