at #4671Ben MilliganParticipant
I review the electrical inspection condition reports we receive for our void properties. Due to my organisations geographical spread we have a number of electrical subcontractors so we get a variety of formats of forms coming in.
It is therefore quite important to closely review EICR’s. I have found various issues with reports which include:
• No details of client or wrong details
• Working to amendment 2011 or amendment not listed
• No address of contractor listed
• Nothing written in for the condition of the installation or the UNSATISFACTORY statement not scored out.
• Writing which is poor in places where you can’t fully make out test results
• No recommendation listed for when the installation should be re-tested
• Installation address spelt incorrectly
• C2 fault being listed as C3 fault
Now I have no issue in sending back an EICR where the information is inadequate. This did however get me thinking on the legislation side, I am not aware of any legislation which states what must be recorded on a EICR. There are model forms but I can’t find guidance which specifies clearly the points that must be completed.
With The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 it states in regulation 36 that there are 9 points which must be recorded. If any of these points are missing it would not be considered a legal document and therefore it is easy to wrap your head around and easy to send back a document to the contractor.
It seems to me that the same structure is not in place for electrical safety. What is the consensus on sending back documents? for example if the contractor accidentally put in the wrong client details would you consider it too nit picky to send the EICR back?
I sent back an EICR today for not having anything noted for the condition for the installation which is essentially the main thing I am sure most people look for. I would go further to say allot of maintenance officers within housing associations will only look for the ‘satisfactory’ and not probe any further into the report.at #4674Andy FParticipant
It’s a great post Ben.
I send back EICR’s on a regular basis for a variety of reasons, mostly for the reasons you have stated but also if things are a bit vague.
I recently carried out an audit for our leaseholder team to what documents they held and they do exactly what you describe by just looking to see if the report is satisfactory or not. Unfortunately for them, they had a load with F/I on but marked as satisfactory in which I had to inform them that it wasn’t satisfactory and that they needed to resolve the issues identified.
It would be great to have some clear guidance on this subject.
I also get reports where the contractor will put the incorrect wiring references and therefore make the report unsatisfactory. I’d like to know where we stand after I’ve sent them back to the contractor telling them the reasons why it should be satisfactory but we fail to receive a new report to this effect.at #4679Ryan DempseyMember
Hope you had nice Christmas.
This really is a great questions and I totally agree there should be some kind of ‘clear’ rules that specifies the essential tests that cannot be missed. maybe the IET just assume that fold will know because each field on the back page is used to verify certain things. For example:
To calculate disconnection time and Adiabatic you need install method, wiring type, Zs, voltage cps size etc.
If any of these fields are missing you can’t really confirm the installation is safe.
I would personally say any field that is complete using the engineers test equipment and physical sight, and obviously the address fields are essential. The rest can be assumed.
I guess the answer to the question is every field that you need to verify that the whole installation is safe for continued use.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.