EICR FI faults holding up Satisfactory certificate.

[MarkyofftheMark]

Just had an EICR, and the tester won't provide a satisfactory certificate until FI faults are corrected. These mainly consist of locating circuits that they didn't test.
On the last EICR that took place at my site (17th edition) I recall the rectification of C1 and C2 faults being sufficient. Is this correct?

many thanks

Mark

 

[JBW175]

FI means further investigation required and gives rise to an unsatisfactory report.

The FI codes will need investigating as could give rise to further works that require remedial action before a satisfactory report can be issued.

 

[Tom 256]

Yes an F.I. code warrants an unsatisfactory yet are the matters described above worthy of a F.I. code?

F.I. = where on inspection an issue has revealed a possible problem that due to limitations cannot despite all best efforts be fully inspected at that time and on further investigation could well reveal a C1 or C2.

What was it about those circuits not checked due to limitations that gave reason to believe there could be a C1 or C2 fault present?

 

[Tom 256]

QUOTE: The FI codes will need investigating as could give rise to further works that require remedial action before a satisfactory report can be issued.

No EICR should be being done with a view to remedial works!

That pattern of thought needs to stop.

 

[Risteard]

Yes an F.I. code warrants an unsatisfactory yet are the matters described above worthy of a F.I. code?

F.I. = where on inspection an issue has revealed a possible problem that due to limitations cannot despite all best efforts be fully inspected at that time and on further investigation could well reveal a C1 or C2.

What was it about those circuits not checked due to limitations that gave reason to believe there could be a C1 or C2 fault present?

If the circuits couldn't be identified then FI seems entirely fair.

 

[Spoon]

QUOTE: The FI codes will need investigating as could give rise to further works that require remedial action before a satisfactory report can be issued.

No EICR should be being done with a view to remedial works!

That pattern of thought needs to stop.

@JBW175 quote "The FI codes will need investigating as could give rise to further works that require remedial action before a satisfactory report can be issued." is correct. He didn't specify that the 'further work' needs to be carried out by the person doing the test. That's the way a read it.
I suppose it just depends on how you read it..

EDIT: Don't get me wrong mate. I totally agree with you that "No EICR should be being done with a view to remedial works!" being carried out by the tester.

 

[newfutile]

I have been known to disconnect untraceable circuits to complete a satisfactory EICR , it maybe an idea to leave these circuits switched off for a week or so and see if it causes any problems .

 

[Tom256]

If the circuits couldn't be identified then FI seems entirely fair.

An electrical installation does not in itself become unsafe for continued use because an inspector can't identify a circuit.

 

[rewireIT]

An electrical installation does not in itself become unsafe for continued use because an inspector can't identify a circuit.

Who said it was unsafe? Fi means further investigation. Nothing implies unsafe.

 

[Tom256]

Who said it was unsafe? Fi means further investigation. Nothing implies unsafe.

As I said earlier in this thread:
Quote:
F.I. = where on inspection an issue has revealed a possible problem that due to limitations cannot despite all best efforts be fully inspected at that time and on further investigation could well reveal a C1 or C2.

What was it about those circuits not checked due to limitations that gave reason to believe there could be a C1 or C2 fault present?

End quote


What's the difference between a limitation, an operational limitation and a Further investigation code?

 

[newfutile]

I have traced unknown circuits that have ended in a cut cable with C1 code due to live parts , if you don’t know what the circuit does you cant say it’s safe

 

[Tom 256]

I have traced unknown circuits that have ended in a cut cable with C1 code due to live parts , if you don’t know what the circuit does you cant say it’s safe

Yes of course because you traced the circuit. That is the point of the inspection - to report on the condition of the electrical installation.
Such takes time and requires that circuits be identified. That is the duty we hold to the client. It is why EICR's cant be 10 minutes in the building to take a picture of the board then fill the rest in once back in the van.

A Further Investigation entry leads to an inspector declaring this electrical installation is not safe for continued use. That should not be because the inspector needs to be away... what with 8 EICR's to do today there ain't time for a proper inspection and report.

 

[Tom 256]

Yes of course because you traced the circuit. That is the point of the inspection - to report on the condition of the electrical installation.
Such takes time and requires that circuits be identified. That is the duty we hold to the client. It is why EICR's cant be 10 minutes in the building to take a picture of the board then fill the rest in once back in the van.

A Further Investigation entry leads to an inspector declaring this electrical installation is not safe for continued use. That should not be because the inspector needs to be away... what with 8 EICR's to do today there ain't time for a proper inspection and report.

and of course that cable traced could have been wonderfully terminated in text book style. It is why we trace and not just put F.I. < cos No Time

 

[littlespark]

another year old thread successfully resurrected.

 

[Tom 256]

another year old thread successfully resurrected

Absolutely and your point is ?

 

[westward10]

Can we keep this friendly please.

 

[davesparks]

An electrical installation does not in itself become unsafe for continued use because an inspector can't identify a circuit.

Nobody has said it is unsafe for continued use. It has been deemed unsatisfactory.

Unsafe and unsatisfactory mean different things.

 

[Tom 256]

Nobody has said it is unsafe for continued use. It has been deemed unsatisfactory.

Unsafe and unsatisfactory mean different things.

Oh I see

Ok, Lets pretend. I am the customer you are the electrician.

I need an EICR and I am requesting the report and paying for the inspection. Any relevant questions at this stage you as the electrician would ask. (Extent perhaps - sayin')

6 circuits in the board and out of the 6 you tell me only 4 have been inspected because 2 you could not trace.

Turning to my EICR based on model form which you have completed.
Page 1 lets fill this part in:

'Overall assessment of the installation in terms of its suitability for continued use - SATISFACTORY / UNSATISFACTORY (delete as appropriate)'

What are you going to delete?

Turning to the observations and coding. I see the two circuits you have not identified are coded F. I.
I read the notes and see these are issues that require further investigation WITHOUT DELAY (caps mine).
Sounds serious so I read the notes on the EICR and now ask you a few questions
"Why should these circuits be traced WITHOUT DELAY ?" " I see it says they could be potentially dangerous, what makes you believe they are potentially dangerous?"

I need a SATISFACTORY finding on the EICR (Extent - whats that then) so you agree to come back a second time to trace the circuits you have not traced this time. For a fee (obviously).
Do you start ripping up my new floors, cut holes in my decorated walls and take down sections of ceiling to find these two pesky cables?

 

[rewireIT]

Oh I see

Ok, Lets pretend. I am the customer you are the electrician.

I need an EICR and I am requesting the report and paying for the inspection. Any relevant questions at this stage you as the electrician would ask. (Extent perhaps - sayin')

6 circuits in the board and out of the 6 you tell me only 4 have been inspected because 2 you could not trace.

Turning to my EICR based on model form which you have completed.
Page 1 lets fill this part in:

'Overall assessment of the installation in terms of its suitability for continued use - SATISFACTORY / UNSATISFACTORY (delete as appropriate)'

What are you going to delete?

Turning to the observations and coding. I see the two circuits you have not identified are coded F. I.
I read the notes and see these are issues that require further investigation WITHOUT DELAY (caps mine).
Sounds serious so I read the notes on the EICR and now ask you a few questions
"Why should these circuits be traced WITHOUT DELAY ?" " I see it says they could be potentially dangerous, what makes you believe they are potentially dangerous?"

I need a SATISFACTORY finding on the EICR (Extent - whats that then) so you agree to come back a second time to trace the circuits you have not traced this time. For a fee (obviously).
Do you start ripping up my new floors, cut holes in my decorated walls and take down sections of ceiling to find these two pesky cables?

Figuring out you can't trace them is PART OF THE EICR. You're basically saying the whole notion of an FI is wrong. Which makes you wrong, sorry.

 

[Tom 256]

No I am not. The F. I. coding is clearly explained in the relevant documents

 

[loz2754]

Normally I would use the Electrical Safety First Guidance Note 4 for industry-backed guidance on EICR coding issues.
However, in this instance, there is conflicting guidance between the latest guidance and the previous guidance when it comes to FI codes. This is not at all helpful!

In BPG4 Issue 5 it clearly states that circuits that are not identified and not readily traced would warrant an FI.

Then you get this, directly copied from BPG4 Issue 6:

"FI - Further investigation required without delay.
In a domestic or similar installation, it should
generally be possible to attribute a Classification Code to each observation without the need for further investigation.
No examples of FI codes applicable for domestic and similar installations are given in this guide.
The purpose of periodic inspection, as previously stated, is not to carry out a fault-finding exercise, but to assess and report on the condition of an installation within the agreed extent and limitations of the inspection. Therefore, where an observation can be attributed a Classification Code, further investigation would not be required for the purposes of completing the condition report.
Further investigation should be called for in respect of any observation that could reasonably be expected to reveal danger or potential danger.
Further investigation should not be called for simply because it would be ‘nice to know' – for example, why a socket-outlet is unearthed.
If an observation cannot be attributed a
Classification Code due to reasonable doubt as to whether danger or potential danger exists, the outcome of the assessment must be reported to be unsatisfactory.
The person ordering the report should be advised that the inspection and/or testing has revealed a potential safety issue which could not, due to the agreed extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully determined, and that the issue should be investigated as soon as possible."

 

[Risteard]

Normally I would use the Electrical Safety First Guidance Note 4 for industry-backed guidance on EICR coding issues.
However, in this instance, there is conflicting guidance between the latest guidance and the previous guidance when it comes to FI codes. This is not at all helpful!

In BPG4 Issue 5 it clearly states that circuits that are not identified and not readily traced would warrant an FI.

Then you get this, directly copied from BPG4 Issue 6:

"FI - Further investigation required without delay.
In a domestic or similar installation, it should
generally be possible to attribute a Classification Code to each observation without the need for further investigation.
No examples of FI codes applicable for domestic and similar installations are given in this guide.
The purpose of periodic inspection, as previously stated, is not to carry out a fault-finding exercise, but to assess and report on the condition of an installation within the agreed extent and limitations of the inspection. Therefore, where an observation can be attributed a Classification Code, further investigation would not be required for the purposes of completing the condition report.
Further investigation should be called for in respect of any observation that could reasonably be expected to reveal danger or potential danger.
Further investigation should not be called for simply because it would be ‘nice to know' – for example, why a socket-outlet is unearthed.
If an observation cannot be attributed a
Classification Code due to reasonable doubt as to whether danger or potential danger exists, the outcome of the assessment must be reported to be unsatisfactory.
The person ordering the report should be advised that the inspection and/or testing has revealed a potential safety issue which could not, due to the agreed extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully determined, and that the issue should be investigated as soon as possible."

I don't see the conflict there.

 

[loz2754]

I don't see the conflict there.

No? There's at least an omission from the previous issue. That is, the previous issue stated directly that an untraced circuit should be give an FI code. The current issue states that no examples are given of what would warrant an FI code.

 

[rewireIT]

No? There's at least an omission from the previous issue. That is, the previous issue stated directly that an untraced circuit should be give an FI code. The current issue states that no examples are given of what would warrant an FI code.

'Therefore, where an observation can be attributed a Classification Code, further investigation would not be required for the purposes of completing the condition report.'

You can't code what you can't see therefore FI required.

 

[Tom256]

Seeing as I am unable to post in any other thread but this let me end my time here.

Quote:
'You can't code what you can't see therefore FI required.'

Is F.I. not a coding then?

-------

As I have already said; you can't trace a circuit on this EICR thats you are charging the client for. Thus you decide to require a 'Further Investigation' take place at some later point in time and note on the EICR paperwork an F. I. coding.
Tell me, what are you going to do different on those follow up visits to trace the circuits that you could not do on that initial visit?

Oh never mind. Let me end with a regulation.
651.1 (later part). On an EICR you have unknown circuit / circuits as such it would be reasonable to say in this scenario that you have no existing documentation to identify such circuits. Prior to carrying out the EICR what should you do ?

The electrical industry is aiming for the bottom

 

[rewireIT]

Seeing as I am unable to post in any other thread but this let me end my time here.

Quote:
'You can't code what you can't see therefore FI required.'

Is F.I. not a coding then?

Call it whatever you like; but it means the EICR is unsatisfactory.

-------

As I have already said; you can't trace a circuit on this EICR thats you are charging the client for. Thus you decide to require a 'Further Investigation' take place at some later point in time and note on the EICR paperwork an F. I. coding.

FI is a perfectly reasonable PART OF AN EICR.

Tell me, what are you going to do different on those follow up visits to trace the circuits that you could not do on that initial visit?

Trace them. And get appropriately paid for doing so.