EICR & Insurance Companies

[ipf]

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.

What does my head in with some insurance providers is THEM stating the electrical requirements. You've completed an EICR, the summation of which is an overall assessment of the installation, i.e. Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. To me, that says it all. Recommendations can improve the state of the installation but it has been passed by a suitably qualified person as satisfactory.

 

[Engineer54]

What does my head in with some insurance providers is THEM stating the electrical requirements. You've completed an EICR, the summation of which is an overall assessment of the installation, i.e. Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. To me, that says it all. Recommendations can improve the state of the installation but it has been passed by a suitably qualified person as satisfactory.

Insurance companies have the right to ask for all deficiencies to be addressed as they are taking the risk with insuring this thatched roof house, ....or any other property come to that!! They also have the right to cancel the cover on a property, if their conditions are not met!!

 

[yellowvanman]

Just to tie up loose ends.

I suggested the owner 'push back' on the insurance company and they have relented to 2 observations that I did tick 'needs further investigation' box, which seems fair enough!

1) One circuit unable to identify what was being fed

2) The high r2 I mentioned previously

 

[ipf]

Just to tie up loose ends.

I suggested the owner 'push back' on the insurance company and they have relented to 2 observations that I did tick 'needs further investigation' box, which seems fair enough!

1) One circuit unable to identify what was being fed

2) The high r2 I mentioned previously

Seems they bend a bit, then. Further investigation, I can understand. It does leave it in 'no man's land' to a great degree.

 

[UNG]

Always found insurance companies get the wrong end of the stick but then again PIR's / EICR's are not the most clear documents to read for the inexperienced but usually a chat with them sorts the problem or misinterpretation out