Advertisement - Content continues below
Advertisement - Content continues below

Discuss Yet Another Dodgy EICR in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

JK-Electrical

-
Arms
Esteemed
Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:  American Electrical Advice Forum

A prospective customer has contacted me via a recommendation received from a mutual contact and asked me to provide a quotation for remedial works that have arisen from an EICR that was recently undertaken at a three-bedroom property he rents out. In his initial e-mail, he said that the letting agent has told him that the following remedial works are necessary:

Replace Fusebox then test and certify
Materials to replace a double socket
Materials to install main gas bond, 10m of 16mm earth cable, 2 bonding clamps

I asked the property owner to forward me a copy of the EICR. I have redacted all personal details contained therein and have uploaded the report for your consideration, scrutiny and appraisal. My own personal assessment is that the property owner has been ripped-off by a drive-by tester and that the report isn't worth the paper that it's written on. Although the property owner was charged just £95.00 by the letting agent, even this amount could be considered excessive given the poor quality of the report.

Over to you guys .....
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Test Meter - Forum Sponsors since 2007!
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
Advertisement - Content continues below

ferg

-
Arms
Esteemed
Lol that must be a mistake.

Perhaps the spark didn't read it before sending it and missed the error.
 

Matthewd29

-
Arms
Esteemed
Points 9 and 10 are strange to say the least. If the kitchen sockets are not a ring/radial what are they? Or am i missing something
 

JK-Electrical

-
Arms
Esteemed
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Points 9 and 10 are strange to say the least. If the kitchen sockets are not a ring/radial what are they? Or am i missing something
According to the test schedule, there is no circuit for the kitchen sockets. Indeed, according to the test schedule there are no circuits anywhere in the installation ..... all of which are stated to have a Zs of 0.17 ohms!o_O
 

NDG Elecs

-
Arms
Esteemed
That's how I'm gonna start filling in the test results from now on! What a time saver it will be!
I didn't find the list of observations too offensive TBH. Could have been worded better but have seen worse. But without the test results surely it's just a visual ?!
 

JK-Electrical

-
Arms
Esteemed
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
But without the test results surely it's just a visual ?!
Although the tester has stated that the installation was "100% tested", the absence of any test results casts a long shadow of doubt as to whether he actually did carry-out a full range of tests on every circuit. This report isn't fit for the purpose as without the test results it's utterly useless as it tells us nothing about the overall condition of the installation.
 

JK-Electrical

-
Arms
Esteemed
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
My observations:

1. The form used is the 2008 version. The tester should have used the current 2018 version.

2. The installation is said to have been "100% tested". If so, then why has the schedule of tests been left blank?

3. The summary of the condition of the installation has been left blank. Why?

4. Mandatory inspection and testing of private rented accommodation in Scotland takes place every five years, not three as is stated on the report.

5. The nominal voltage of the installation is stated to be 239 volts. I would normally attribute an error like this to a typo, but given the other glaring errors that I've noticed on this report I'm not sure that this actually is a typo.

6. The maximum demand check-box has been marked N/A. Sloppy.

7. Main protective bonding to gas and water services is stated to be present. If so, then why has the property owner been quoted for "materials to install main gas bond"? Furthermore, why has the tester quoted for a 16mm conductor when 10mm would suffice?

8. Section 3.1, all parts relating to main protective bonding have been marked as satisfactory. But how can this possibly be so when the property owner has been told that part of the remedial works concerns the installation of bonding to the gas service? Which of these two contradictory statements is true and which is false?

9. Although the earthing system has been marked as being TN-C-S in section 5.12, RCD(s) provided for fault protection has nevertheless been checked. Some mistake surely!

10. Section 5.16, presence of RCD restest notice, has been marked as N/A. Another glaring error.

11. Giving C3 codes for the items listed in sections 5.20 and 5.21 is bordering on the ridiculous. It would be quicker just to affix the missing labels. Ditto section 6.1. Giving a code for unsleeved switched lives is unwarranted IMHO.

12. Section 6.9, presence and adequacy of circuit protective conductors has been marked as satisfactory. However, under the Schedule of Items Tested, it is stated that continuity of protective conductors requires further investigation. Why the contradiction?

13. The Test Results and Circuit Details section contain no data other than multiple entries in the Zs column of 0.17. Since the report was supposedly checked before being signed-off by the tester's boss, there really are no excuses for the extremely poor quality of this EICR. None whatsoever.

Then there are the codes. In my opinion, items 1, 2 and 3 do not merit codes. I'm puzzled as to why a faulty socket merits a C2 while a faulty FCU merits a C3.

The description given for item 7 would make more sense if the tester had stated which circuit he believed to be overloaded.

Item 8 isn't something I would code unless something drastic had occurred such as wetpants installing a boiler directly in front of the consumer unit.

Had the tester bothered to list the actual readings obtained from his IR tests we might then know the identity of which "2 x separate circuits" he's referring to regarding item 9.

As for item 10, all I can say here is WTF? If the kitchen sockets aren't on a ring then they must be on a radial and vice-versa. I would expect to hear such a ridiculous statement from a plumber or a kitchen-fitter, but never from someone claiming to be an electrician.

I'm utterly embarrassed to reveal that the company responsible for this report are SELECT members. My advice to the property owner will be that he should either refuse to pay for this EICR, or obtain a refund as the report isn't worth the paper that it's printed on. I would also advise that the installation be retested by a reputable contractor so that its true condition may be ascertained. I would further advise the property owner to make a complaint to SELECT whom I'm sure will be aghast.
 

NDG Elecs

-
Arms
Esteemed
Although the tester has stated that the installation was "100% tested", the absence of any test results casts a long shadow of doubt as to whether he actually did carry-out a full range of tests on every circuit. This report isn't fit for the purpose as without the test results it's utterly useless as it tells us nothing about the overall condition of the installation.
I was being tongue in cheek there JK. I agree that it is not worth the paper it is written on at all, and this should not be paid for at all The schedule of test results is the main page we go to I would say for 'useful' information about an installation. Doesn't the 'tester' say something about low IR in the observations as well...! Low IR where !

And do sparks in Scotland use a different main switch? I use 60947-3 type usually !!
 

JK-Electrical

-
Arms
Esteemed
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Well-spotted NDG. The tester has inputted 60497-3 on site instead of 60947-3 and the error wasn't picked-up by his boss when he supposedly checked the form.

From what I've learned about the company concerned, it is apparent that they are a one-stop "landlord compliance" service who offer not only electrical certification, but gas certification too. On their website they say that they:

provide certification services to landlords and letting agencies including PAT testing, EICR, gas safety, legionnaires assessment, smoke alarm testing and fitting.

And:

We will liaise directly with your tenants, carry out the work to the highest standards and all certification will be completed electronically and available same day to access and download any new or archived certificates at any point from your client login area.

However, the extremely poor quality of this EICR makes a complete mockery of the claim that they "carry out the work to the highest standards".

They continue:

We prove all certificates required to be fully compliant. Fast efficient service with documents available online within hours of the inspection. We can fully manage all your portfolio of properties or a simple buy as required service.

I'm quite certain that this was a 'let's get this report done as quickly as possible so we can get to our next job as we've got another five EICRs to do today so we can meet our target and avoid the boss' wrath type of job. The property, incidentally, is a three-bedroom flat. My fee for that would be £165.00. This is about as much as the over-saturated market will pay up here. A big factor in why prices for EICRs are so low in Glasgow is largely down to the dubious practices of companies such as the one who did this report. But you get what you pay for in the end.
 

andyb

-
Arms
Esteemed
My observations:

1. The form used is the 2008 version. The tester should have used the current 2018 version.

2. The installation is said to have been "100% tested". If so, then why has the schedule of tests been left blank?

3. The summary of the condition of the installation has been left blank. Why?

4. Mandatory inspection and testing of private rented accommodation in Scotland takes place every five years, not three as is stated on the report.

5. The nominal voltage of the installation is stated to be 239 volts. I would normally attribute an error like this to a typo, but given the other glaring errors that I've noticed on this report I'm not sure that this actually is a typo.

6. The maximum demand check-box has been marked N/A. Sloppy.

7. Main protective bonding to gas and water services is stated to be present. If so, then why has the property owner been quoted for "materials to install main gas bond"? Furthermore, why has the tester quoted for a 16mm conductor when 10mm would suffice?

8. Section 3.1, all parts relating to main protective bonding have been marked as satisfactory. But how can this possibly be so when the property owner has been told that part of the remedial works concerns the installation of bonding to the gas service? Which of these two contradictory statements is true and which is false?

9. Although the earthing system has been marked as being TN-C-S in section 5.12, RCD(s) provided for fault protection has nevertheless been checked. Some mistake surely!

10. Section 5.16, presence of RCD restest notice, has been marked as N/A. Another glaring error.

11. Giving C3 codes for the items listed in sections 5.20 and 5.21 is bordering on the ridiculous. It would be quicker just to affix the missing labels. Ditto section 6.1. Giving a code for unsleeved switched lives is unwarranted IMHO.

12. Section 6.9, presence and adequacy of circuit protective conductors has been marked as satisfactory. However, under the Schedule of Items Tested, it is stated that continuity of protective conductors requires further investigation. Why the contradiction?

13. The Test Results and Circuit Details section contain no data other than multiple entries in the Zs column of 0.17. Since the report was supposedly checked before being signed-off by the tester's boss, there really are no excuses for the extremely poor quality of this EICR. None whatsoever.

Then there are the codes. In my opinion, items 1, 2 and 3 do not merit codes. I'm puzzled as to why a faulty socket merits a C2 while a faulty FCU merits a C3.

The description given for item 7 would make more sense if the tester had stated which circuit he believed to be overloaded.

Item 8 isn't something I would code unless something drastic had occurred such as wetpants installing a boiler directly in front of the consumer unit.

Had the tester bothered to list the actual readings obtained from his IR tests we might then know the identity of which "2 x separate circuits" he's referring to regarding item 9.

As for item 10, all I can say here is WTF? If the kitchen sockets aren't on a ring then they must be on a radial and vice-versa. I would expect to hear such a ridiculous statement from a plumber or a kitchen-fitter, but never from someone claiming to be an electrician.

I'm utterly embarrassed to reveal that the company responsible for this report are SELECT members. My advice to the property owner will be that he should either refuse to pay for this EICR, or obtain a refund as the report isn't worth the paper that it's printed on. I would also advise that the installation be retested by a reputable contractor so that its true condition may be ascertained. I would further advise the property owner to make a complaint to SELECT whom I'm sure will be aghast.
I suspect that your summing up of the report took longer to do than the report itself.
 
I have just done an EICR , I waved my note book at the consumer unit , poked my head round a few doors did i mention I left my tester in the van but no matter I know what the readings will be anyway.
I am going to scribble some notes on my test sheets , tick a few boxes at random as you do and head down the pub for lunch.
£195 cash in my pocket for 45mins work.

Am I doing this right ???
 
Electrical2Go - Online Electrical Supplier
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
Advertisement - Content continues below

Reply to Yet Another Dodgy EICR in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
buzzlightyear Electrical Forum 12
FatAlan Electrical Forum 16
polo1 Electrical Forum 9
T Industrial Electrician Talk 5
N Electrical Forum 5
Advertisement - Content continues below
Advertisement - Content continues below

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
Advertisement - Content continues below
Top Bottom