Eicr - who can do remedial work

[Simon-0116]

Firm we work for uses a national testing / safety firm for all health and safety etc.
They have carried out a eicr and there is a few c2, and 1 x db change / further investigation noted.
They say only they can carry out the work at extortionate prices.

How do we stand.
Do we do work and issue a eic for the work done. And add this to paper work they gave, but cert is unsatisfactory.
With a covering letter stating work done.
Before anyone says I've not got 2391 testing cert, but can carry out installation work.
Thanks.

 

[davesparks]

Anyone can carry out the remedial work.

I always advise that different contractors should carry out the EICR and the remedial work to avoid false reporting and cowboy tactics such as you have experienced here.

 

[JBW175]

You don’t need to use them to carry out the remedial works, you can employ any spark you see fit to do that.

If you’re competent to do the installation work and issue a cert yourself then there’s no problem doing that either.
[automerge]1596750280[/automerge]

You don’t need to use them to carry out the remedial works, you can employ any spark you see fit to do that.

If you’re competent to do the installation work and issue a cert yourself then there’s no problem doing that either.

Forgot to say, you may have an unsatisfactory certificate, but it will have a date on it recommending when the next test should be carried out “as long as all remedial works have been rectified”

So as long as you can prove they’ve been carried out, you’ll be good to go until the next test date.

 

[Simon-0116]

Anyone can carry out the remedial work.

I always advise that different contractors should carry out the EICR and the remedial work to avoid false reporting and cowboy tactics such as you have experienced here.

Hi
Presume we just carry out work and put a covering letter with eic stating what we've done.
Yes they are basically ringing up every other say stating they need to do work

 

[davesparks]

Hi
Presume we just carry out work and put a covering letter with eic stating what we've done.
Yes they are basically ringing up every other say stating they need to do work

Tell them that you will be getting another contractor to do the remedial work and if they continue to harass you then you will report them to trading standards for using these bullying tactics.

 

[telectrix]

Tell them that you will be getting another contractor to do the remedial work and if they continue to harass you then you will report them to trading standards for using these bullying tactics.

or report them to their scheme. i hear that NICEIC are running short of toilet paper ( coz. that's all NICEIC will use your report for ).

seriously though, as above, do the remedials, attach a EIC to the EICR. all good.

 

[Vortigern]

It is a breach of trading standards to mis-lead or make false representations to a customer. I should give them a call and seek some advice. Personally I feel angry and it is nothing to do with me, when I read the story above. Never going to use them again eh?

 

[Taylortwocities]

Before anyone says I've not got 2391 testing cert, but can carry out installation work.
Thanks.

The crazy thing is that, for EICRs, there are no qualifications required to carry one out (thats partly why we see things like this).
Also, no quals are needed for remedials, unless the remedial extends to notifiable work, like a replacement consumer unit.

 

[nicebutdim]

The crazy thing is that, for EICRs, there are no qualifications required to carry one out (thats partly why we see things like this).
Also, no quals are needed for remedials, unless the remedial extends to notifiable work, like a replacement consumer unit.

Wait. Anyone can carry out an EICR, without having attained any sort of qualification in inspection and testing?

That's a bit daft.

 

[JBW175]

Wait. Anyone can carry out an EICR, without having attained any sort of qualification in inspection and testing?

That's a bit daft.

That’s correct, you only need to be competent, although a lot of schemes will ask for a qualification in inspection and testing if you want to carry them out under their banner; and a 2391 qual goes a long way to proving competence with them.

 

[nicebutdim]

That’s correct, you only need to be competent, although a lot of schemes will ask for a qualification in inspection and testing if you want to carry them out under their banner; and a 2391 qual goes a long way to proving competence with them.

I don't know the whole ins and outs of the industry, but had laboured (incorrectly) under the assumption that 2391 was required for anyone who carried out testing and ispection of installations.

 

[davesparks]

I don't know the whole ins and outs of the industry, but had laboured (incorrectly) under the assumption that 2391 was required for anyone who carried out testing and ispection of installations.

If that was the case I'd have a legitimate reason to get out of doing EICRs, I don't have any inspection and testing qualifications.

 

[nicebutdim]

And I guess many people who are in receipt of a 2391 qualification might struggle with some of the weird and wonderful stuff you find during those EICRs.

 

[JBW175]

And I guess many people who are in receipt of a 2391 qualification might struggle with some of the weird and wonderful stuff you find during those EICRs.

True, regardless of what qualifications you hold, something can always pop up that you’re unsure of; and being able to draw off other people’s experience is a blessing when it does.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Back in the day, when I signed up with NAPIT, 2391 was mandatory. Understandable considering what the NAPIT initials stand for. Then along came Part Pee and a gravy train for organisations like NAPIT who turned themselves into an expensive installers register.
What has evolved is that you can be a member of a CPS with little more than 5-day course and access to £600. If you are a CPS member, they will want you to have a T&I qualification (2391 or whatever the dumbed down version is called now) if you are going to do EICRs under their umbrella. Quite right too.

However, someone who is not a CPS member With no qualifications of any sort, and only scant understanding of anything, can carry out EICRs, wrongly condemning perfectly serviceable installations, costing householders and landlords unnecessary expense.
Crazy.

 

[nicebutdim]

Back in the day, when I signed up with NAPIT, 2391 was mandatory. Understandable considering what the NAPIT initials stand for. Then along came Part Pee and a gravy train for organisations like NAPIT who turned themselves into an expensive installers register.
What has evolved is that you can be a member of a CPS with little more than 5-day course and access to £600. If you are a CPS member, they will want you to have a T&I qualification (2391 or whatever the dumbed down version is called now) if you are going to do EICRs under their umbrella. Quite right too.

However, someone who is not a CPS member With no qualifications of any sort, and only scant understanding of anything, can carry out EICRs, wrongly condemning perfectly serviceable installations, costing householders and landlords unnecessary expense.
Crazy.

In an ideal world, people would only take on jobs that they were confident about and which fell within the scope of their abilities. Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world and there will always be people ready to grab any opportunity that comes along, if it means they can pocket a few more pounds.

 

[pc1966]

In an ideal world, people would only take on jobs that they were confident about and which fell within the scope of their abilities.

Alas, we also have this to contend with:

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You don't need to read the Wiki article, as the title of the original academic paper (Kruger and Dunning, 1999) says it all:

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

Having recognised qualifications is a good route to doing the related work, but they don't always mean a person is that competent, and there are folks out there (in this forum, for example) who lack the formal qualifications but could teach actually the course if needed!

 

[EricMark]

An interesting point raised here, the new landlord laws it seems call for a level 3 qualification, but the BS7671 only says must have the skill it does not require any paper qualification, and it seems it is up to the owner to verify the person doing the EICR has the qualifications and insurance required by law.

I had the same with LABC when we kicked off the guys doing a conversion toilet and pantry into a wet room, I had assumed (incorrectly) the builder had informed LABC so I told them I was taking over the job, and we were told off for starting before they said go, and also told in no uncertain terms it was the home owners job to tell LABC if the builder did it then that was a service he was providing, but it was our job to verify he had.

Unlike a new installation there is no requirement in England and Wales not sure about Scotland, to be a member of a scheme to do an EICR. And it would seem any level 3 remotely connected to electrical work will do, we would hope for C&G 2391 but it would seem my radio amateurs exam (RAE) would fit the criteria, which since the exam was stopped around 25 years ago clearly anything learnt would be well out of date, think the Scottish rules do have a clause about resent learning.

Until we left the EU we were obliged to accept qualifications from other countries, so we are not just looking at City & Guilds. And even the 16th Edition was taught and tested by collages, with internal exams. This did cause problems with 17th Edition when students found they could not take the update, because their qualification was not registered with C&G.

Indenture's are still valid, and in my day one did not have to go to collage and take any exams to be considered qualified, once you finished your apprenticeship you were qualified, and my old qualifications did not have level 2 or level 3 marked on them, and an 'A' level is level 3.

And to be frank my level 5 qualification did not teach me anything about regulations, so even an electrical and electronic engineering degree does not help doing an EIRC although I do have my 2391 anyway.

When I wanted to buy a new house, I had a buyers report done, as part of the report it referred to the electrical installation and its condition, clearly the surveyor would hold better than level 3, and he would be insured, however although it was an EICR it was not to the standard expected for one done by an electrician.

So had I bought this house with the idea of renting it, I could have well considered I was covered, well since in Wales and the EICR is only required for multi occupancy I would be covered, but I am sure you can see my point, how can the owner know if the guy he has employed has the skill to do the inspection?

I noted on another forum how one electrician said he will only do one EICR per day as he must have the time to fix any small problems before he leaves, he charges for the day, and any parts fitted in the day only the price of parts is charged for, if he has to return only then does he charge for time.

But there is no requirement to have a clean EICR with no C2 items, all it needs is for the minor works to be included with the EICR, to show it has been corrected. However it seems letting agents don't follow the law, they often ask for well over what regulations and laws require. The regulations and C&G training state not potentially dangerous, but letting agents often it seems state all circuits RCD protected and metal consumer unit, clearly not required for a normal EICR but they still ask for it.

I came to consider letting out my mothers old house, and it had a domino hob, just two rings, letting agent was quite insistence they would not put the house on their books until changed, wanted four heating areas, so it is not restricted to the electrical installation they do ask for over and above what is absolutely necessary.

And to be frank that's no a bad thing, I want my house to be safe, and when I realised the type B written on the RCBO was actually type AC but curve B I ordered up two type A for the socket circuits. But on a risk assessment I decided not to change the other 12 RCBO's. As to if type AC RCD where inverter washing machines, and fridge freezers are installed should even get a C3 I am not sure? Would you list it?

 

[pc1966]

But there is no requirement to have a clean EICR with no C2 items, all it needs is for the minor works to be included with the EICR, to show it has been corrected. However it

I was under the impression the new law requires all C2 "unsatisfactory" or FI to be fixed in 28 days?

And to be frank that's no a bad thing, I want my house to be safe, and when I realised the type B written on the RCBO was actually type AC but curve B I ordered up two type A for the socket circuits. But on a risk assessment I decided not to change the other 12 RCBO's. As to if type AC RCD where inverter washing machines, and fridge freezers are installed should even get a C3 I am not sure? Would you list it?

I think it is a marginal risk having AC type RCDs.

For personnel shock protection (e.g. drilling in to hidden cables, touching a damaged extension lead outdoors, etc) they will work just as well provided there is not enough DC fault to block them.

Yes, a faulty appliance might block them, but the bigger ones likely to do that should be earthed (and PAT tested to check that) so I suspect the majority of faults will still trip the RCD or at least take out the OCPD.

 

[EricMark]

I was under the impression the new law requires all C2 "unsatisfactory" or FI to be fixed in 28 days?

Yes but only need to be fixed, you don't need a clean EICR you simply attach the Minor Works.

I see F1 as a problem, as to fix a F1 may not generate a minor works, so if for example a door was locked, if when open no fault found, then no minor works, but it seems even a bill for the work will do, so a bill for inspecting and testing living room no faults found would be enough.

So really the problem is where electricians miss code items, so if called to a home and the EICR says no RCD and when you get there it is clear it does not need a RCD, that is a real problem.

If some one with a C&G 2382 says in a report C2 no RCD and some one with a level 5 degree then says no RCD required, will that bill be good enough?

 

[Baddegg]

If that was the case I'd have a legitimate reason to get out of doing EICRs, I don't have any inspection and testing qualifications.

Not being nosey Dave just curious, can I ask why you’ve not bothered with that qual?....I just assumed someone with your level of knowledge would have it,

 

[davesparks]

Not being nosey Dave just curious, can I ask why you’ve not bothered with that qual?....I just assumed someone with your level of knowledge would have it,

I have never had a need to do it, I learned testing as part of my apprenticeship and I keep myself up to date with the changing requirements of the regulations.
Not having it has never held me back so I don't feel any need to do it.

The various NIC assessors I've had over the years have always been satisfied that I am competent to carry out inspection and testing so have never recommended that I do the course.

 

[EricMark]

When I did C&G 2381 around 2002 I think there were three courses and exams done one after the other, so I continued doing the two testing courses after it. It also mean when the 2382 came out I could do short course and exam.

However don't think it really taught me anything I did not already know, and when doing the exam we were given a test board, and I noted there was a poor connection some where in the board as the loop impedance was too high in the sockets. It seems the board builders had included resistors to give the same sort of reading one would expect with a house, and I was right to condemn the sockets as had they been used the resistors would have over heated and caused a fire, but it seems I was the first to note the reading was too high given the length of run. Those before me had just accepted they were within the limits.

But to know what to expect comes with experience, not training or exams, I am sure like any electrician who tests every installation if I was so inclined I could fudge up a set of results without my meters very close to actual readings, I wouldn't but I could, because over the years I have got to know what to expect. And when I was told to run 6 mm cable to a socket in a factory I told my boss before starting think that needs to be 10 mm for that distance, it was however no consultation when proved right, as I also had to run the replacement.

But when I did my exam there was a code 4 which was does not comply with current edition of BS7671, I liked code 4 as it told people they would need to upgrade before they could alter the installation, however it was considered it lead to confusion, and we only needed to point out dangers and potential dangers and give recommendations, we don't need to point out when it does not comply with current regulations, I think that is wrong, the owners need to know, but we need some standardisation in testing standards so if the IET says you don't need code 4 then you don't use code 4 the C in front of the code shows using the new system.

There has also been some talk about F1, it has been common in the past not to inspect loft spaces where there was no access, it was common for a row of terrace houses only to have a loft hatch in one house of the terrace, and if the house you were inspecting did not have the hatch then you didn't inspect the loft, it has been made plain that is not acceptable, likely because of tapping onto power for illegal use, however in the past F1 was not considered a fail.

The requirements of BS7671 are fair enough, and if some thing changes like earthing in a bathroom that is also fair enough, where the problem lies is where subsequent editions clarifies what was required, so if a circuit for example is "An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s)." and we consider this means the MCB divides the supply into circuits, and then it is clarified by "reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor currents produced by equipment in normal operation." in a latter edition showing the RCD is being considered as forming a circuit, then that leaves us with a problem.

So the home built in 2000 with just two RCD's may have been considered ahead of its time when built, and we saw nothing wrong with only two RCD's but the occupants have been complaining they trip every so often, and you know in your heart of hearts for that size house two RCD's did not cut the mustard, and never has, OK it does not really produce a potential danger any more than a general power cut would so it will not get a code C2, but is an example of some thing that has not really changed, it has only been clarified, so it has always been contra to regulations.

There is also the electrical installation that still does not break any electrical rules, but you know is potentially dangerous, for example splitting the house sockets into upper and lower floor which means if one fails it is likely extension leads will be used up/down stairs, where really it should be split side to side not only to stop the stairs danger but lowers loop impedance and better shares the load. However to correct would need a rewire, so we tend not to even talk about it.

 

[westward10]

It is FI not F1.