EICR & Insurance Companies

[yellowvanman]

Couple of years ago did an EICR on a thatched property, satisfactory conclusion with 6 Code 3 observations, some associated with no RCD protection of concealed cables and bathroom lighting circuit etc. (16th Ed).

Now the insurance company wants me to confirm in writing that these issues have been addressed.

Anyone had this problem before? I would like to 'educate' the insurance company to say these would be fixed next time any work is done and being Code 3 not detrimental to safety etc., and in effect with the rate of current changes to regs everybody will have to change their CU every 10 years or so!

Asked Certsure if they could help me with some arguments to go back to the insurance company - wasting my time with them!

Anyone got any 'nuggets'?

 

[Octopus]

Couple of years ago did an EICR on a thatched property, satisfactory conclusion with 6 Code 3 observations, some associated with no RCD protection of concealed cables and bathroom lighting circuit etc. (16th Ed).

Now the insurance company wants me to confirm in writing that these issues have been addressed.

Anyone had this problem before? I would like to 'educate' the insurance company to say these would be fixed next time any work is done and being Code 3 not detrimental to safety etc., and in effect with the rate of current changes to regs everybody will have to change their CU every 10 years or so!

Asked Certsure if they could help me with some arguments to go back to the insurance company - wasting my time with them!

Anyone got any 'nuggets'?

Have you addressed them?

 

[yellowvanman]

Have you addressed them?

No. Got 60 days to get back to them.

 

[Octopus]

No. Got 60 days to get back to them.

No, I meant did you do any of the work against the C3's you highlighted?

 

[yellowvanman]

No, I meant did you do any of the work against the C3's you highlighted?

No I haven't done anything so far - didn't see the need as only C3s

 

[Octopus]

No I haven't done anything so far - didn't see the need as only C3s

In which case that is the reply you need to give to the Insurance Company.

The way I see it, C3's are something only the client can decide on, not the sparky. However the insurance company may use the C3's to "get" the client to undertake said improvements!

 

[telectrix]

so you compose a nice email and/or a leterheaded letter to the insurers telling them that you have addressed the issues and no further action is required under the rquirements of BS7671.

 

[gnselectricals]

Just had a problem where insurance co wouldn't accept an eicr from me as a Napit bod only ECA/nic/elects so passed it to Napit technical who have sorted it out so I would suggest getting your scam to contact them. Plus you get something for your money then

 

[yellowvanman]

Just had a problem where insurance co wouldn't accept an eicr from me as a Napit bod only ECA/nic/elects so passed it to Napit technical who have sorted it out so I would suggest getting your scam to contact them. Plus you get something for your money then

As mentioned previously tried my scam and they were useless! Not interested, was basically told better to make money by doing work than trying to educate!

 

[gnselectricals]

Didn't see that bit sorry bud, I'd explain to the client that the changes aren't necessary in your opinion but they should be carried out to please the ins co give them a price and they either agree or let them take it up with their insurance.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I would just reply that you have not addressed the matters.
You were engaged to conduct an inspection of the installation, and produce a report.
If either the Insurance company or the client which to have the matters addressed, then you are more than willing to conduct the work.

 

[Doomed]

Have learnt that many insurance companies will want anything given a coding fixed, but then thats up to the client to decide on, and if they get us to do the work we re-issue the cert with the observations removed.

 

[Knobhead]

Have I got things totally wrong here? An EICR is a report, nothing more nothing less. Were you asked to do an EICR plus remedial works?

If just an EICR then tell the insurance company to go and screw themselves. That is unless they’re prepared to pay for your time compiling the report.

 

[stevethesparks]

Have I got things totally wrong here? An EICR is a report, nothing more nothing less. Were you asked to do an EICR plus remedial works?

If just an EICR then tell the insurance company to go and screw themselves. That is unless they’re prepared to pay for your time compiling the report.

That's exactly the way I see it, I thought for a while I was missing something with some of the replies!

 

[Knobhead]

I must have read the thread three times to see if I was missing something.

 

[snowhead]

You carried out the EICR
You made coded observations as per Bs7671
You were only engaged to carry out the EICR (We assume)
And as such were not asked to do remedials.

Without returning to the property (for which you would want payment) and carrying out another EICR, you cannot say at this time whether the remedials that you observed have been completed.

 

[Pete999]

Electrical Installation Condition Report, REPORT being the essence of an EICR that's all it is a report.

 

[rich.250]

Have learnt that many insurance companies will want anything given a coding fixed, but then thats up to the client to decide on, and if they get us to do the work we re-issue the cert with the observations removed.

You should not re issue the cert with the items removed! You should issue an EIC for the work you have done.
For example - To remove all observations from EICR 123456.
As you have carried out installation work to do this.

 

[Engineer54]

That letter from the insurance company should have been addressed to the homeowner, not to yourself. Your work, in conducting the EICR has been completed and the report issued. As i stated in another thread just today, some insurance companies are hot on thatched roof properties!!


The onus is now on the homeowner to confirm or otherwise whether the said code 3 deficiencies have been addressed or not!! I'm just wondering if the homeowner has informed the insurance company that they have been addressed and stating you were the electrician that addressed them??


I'm not saying that code 3 deficiencies need to be sorted out, that's another matter altogether!!

 

[yellowvanman]

Just to clear up some mis-interpretations. All correspondence from the insurance company has been to the owner. What started all this was that the insurance company told the owner he needed an EICR on his house and annex, and as I did it a couple of years ago he replied to them saying it was done (giving them a copy with the observations listed), however at the time of the EICR it was agreed that the annex wouldn't be tested. So now the insurance compnay wants an EICR on the annex and the Code 3s on the house addressed.

If I advised the customer at the time that the Code 3s needed addressing then he would have said go on and do them! But in my mind they didn't need immediate action.

The only thing I'd have difficulty in arguing with the insurance company is that I ticked the 'needs further investigation' column for a r2 measurement that was a little higher than expected in relation to the r1 measurement - but all Zs measurements on the ring were well within limits. Hence my 'relaxed' attitude to the 'problem'.

Ok I can go back and do that, but one of the Code 3s was for no RCD protection of concealed cables and circuits in a bathroom - 16th edition installation.

As I mentioned before if we go on like this home owmers will need to change their CU every few years to get rid of Code 3s, and the poor customer will need deep pockets, were will it all end?
So there will be some customers thinking we're trying to rip them off with all the new work needed whenever an EICR is done.

For instance with the new Ammendment coming out in January if the 'fire proof CU reg is included' I could Code 3 a plastic CU.