EICR - made me laugh

[davesparks]

Here’s my list of grievances...
1) Filled out with a pen. Pretty sure we can do better than this in 2019, looks unprofessional to me.
2) Reason for report: “House sale” - no that’s not how we say it. “Change of occupancy”!
3) As stated by others, very vague observations. I particularly like the one about the garage light: put a lamp in it then or put your tester on the fitting you lazy sod.
4) Test results seem very messy. IR results seem made up to me.
5) There was a covering letter with this report, which again is very vague and doesn’t actually point out what the problems are.

I wish my friend would would have shown me this before he bought the house. Can’t believe that people get paid to produce this rubbish!

This just seems petty and unnecessary.

1) what's wrong with a pen, would you prefer to see it filled out with crayon? Sometimes pen and paper is quicker and easier on site, plus you can sign and hand over the paperwork straight away without having to print it.
2) who are the 'we' who don't say it like that?
Change of occupancy implies a change of tenant rather than of ownership. if you want to be this pedantic then it should be change of ownership or even prospective change of ownership as the house may not have been sold at the time of completing the report. There's nothing wrong with house sale as a reason for the report.
3)I agree
4) they are all pretty clear and legible. Why do you think the IR results are made up? They seem plausible to me, though I suspect some rounding of figures has occurred.

 

[SparkyChick]

Just so there is no ambiguity, I edited the OP to remove an image that contained personally identifiable information of the person who carried out the inspection. Please, when posting such things, always redact personally identifiable information and things like scheme membership numbers, addresses etc.

 

[DPG]

Sparkychick, can you get back to your coding please.

 

[sponge23]

This just seems petty and unnecessary.

1) what's wrong with a pen, would you prefer to see it filled out with crayon? Sometimes pen and paper is quicker and easier on site, plus you can sign and hand over the paperwork straight away without having to print it.
2) who are the 'we' who don't say it like that?
Change of occupancy implies a change of tenant rather than of ownership. if you want to be this pedantic then it should be change of ownership or even prospective change of ownership as the house may not have been sold at the time of completing the report. There's nothing wrong with house sale as a reason for the report.
3)I agree
4) they are all pretty clear and legible. Why do you think the IR results are made up? They seem plausible to me, though I suspect some rounding of figures has occurred.

Yeah agreed, I am. But we’re supposed to be pedantic on these.

The report was posted to my friend. Seems silly to me to do a handwritten one, inconvenient for all involved. I note everything down on paper then type up when I get home.
[automerge]1567441765[/automerge]

Sparkychick, can you get back to your coding please.

Just so there is no ambiguity, I edited the OP to remove an image that contained personally identifiable information of the person who carried out the inspection. Please, when posting such things, always redact personally identifiable information and things like scheme membership numbers, addresses etc.

Thanks

 

[ImpededLoop]

Hard to tell now that the test results page has been removed. Makes a change to see the codings being on the more lenient side rather than dishing out C1's and C2's for non dangerous items.

 

[Des 56]

Hard to tell now that the test results page has been removed. Makes a change to see the codings being on the more lenient side rather than dishing out C1's and C2's for non dangerous items.

I tend to agree with you on the above
I also believe he probably meant well by giving remedies to his observations,however,it ended up making the report a jumbled mess by doing precisely that action