How many EICRs in a day?

[Pete999]

I agree and a fear that like a lot of electrical matters, until something goes terribly wrong and is addressed in a court of law we won't know the answer to 'liability' for an incomplete or heavily limited EICR! Is it purely down to the customer or does the inspector have some blame?

I would say Badged01 that the inspector must take all of the blame, he/she is the person carrying out the inspection, his/her names are on the certificate after they are signing to say that the results are true. I agree with you, until something dreadful happens, and these scams are highlighted we will never know, we've had part P because something happened, whats next Part EICR? The muppets in charge of things in Government, or whatever, must act NOW, not bury their heads in the sand, thinking about how much more they can claim on their third home, get someone who is of sound technical knowledge, that it's not all about "lets just get a man in" believe that's how these Dilberts see us tradesmen, someone in dirty clothes, I know I've worked with them, they have no inkling of whats required to do any job properly, most of them are toffee nosed and have not a clue. RANT OVER sorry about that

 

[Badged01]

No problem having a rant Pete it clears the system!

I know I won't do an EICR if its limited -- you cant test this, you cant test that because we need to keep doing this etc.... If I cant get in and do the full range of tests that I feel are necessary to convince me that the place is Satisfactory for continued use I will walk away. Im not bothered about the money, it's my name on the paperwork. I'm certainly not convinced that if something goes wrong with something I haven't checked, I wont be made to account for why I didn't check it or why I accept the clients protest that I couldn't check it!

I could be totally wrong of course and not having checked something and annotated this on the EICR may be sufficient for there to be no comeback on me. I'm risk adverse and wont be chancing it on EICR's I conduct!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

At 2 hours for perhaps 5 or 6 circuits, you can't hope to test all of them anywhere near properly, and will have to skip a lot of the tests.

For example, a socket RFC, you won't have time to cross connect L-E and measure R1+R2 at each outlet - probably Zs measurements and IR tests are all you can do. And you maybe won't even have time to start disconnecting cables at the CU to measure IR for individual circuits, it will be a global measurement.

So then either you have a lot of LIMs on the test sheet (I've seen this) or instead you start making the numbers up (I've seen this too).

But what if you just measure Zs at the sockets and the results suggest a broken ring? Or the global IR tests are low and you need to find out which circuit is causing this? And there is no time to test fully.

i guess its just as well that he wouldn`t have to then.

end to ends R2 and Zs for these mate.

 

[NDG Elecs]

I would put in operational limitations there were time constraints that prevented thorough testing and then mark each EICR as unsatisfactory until such a time the install can be checked properly and passed or otherwise! Reckon that will provide a nice headache for the idiots running the business. I wouldn't expect to have a job by Friday mind!

 

[NickD]

I agree and a fear that like a lot of electrical matters, until something goes terribly wrong and is addressed in a court of law we won't know the answer to 'liability' for an incomplete or heavily limited EICR! Is it purely down to the customer or does the inspector have some blame?

It's an interesting one. An EICR (non statutory in nature) is not much like an MoT (statutory in nature) because with an EICR you can agree limitations, with an MoT you can't. It's maybe more like if I'm selling a car, put it in garage for a safety check but say "Don't brush any muck off underneath to check for rust". If the car then injures the buyer because of structural failure due to rust, is the garage liable? Even if they knew the safety check was for a sale? Doubtful.

If it went to court, first question is, criminal or civil? Criminal options appear limited. There's H&S at Work Act, failing to discharge a duty (as per the Emma Shaw case), including of avoiding risks to the health and safety of non-employees. But if the check you haven't done was within the agreed limitations, is it beyond reasonable doubt that you still had a legal duty to do the check? Doubtful. Your defence would argue you could have found yourself otherwise liable if you had done tests that you'd agreed not to. As far as the law is concerned you are not necessarily there to make sure everything is safe, you are there to carry out T&I within agreed limitations, anything from just testing the RCDs to full-scope EICR. Morally if you have a problem with that then decline the work, assuming you can do that.

If it went civil (a money claim) then you'd probably be looking at negligence. I suspect you would get off if you could find one reasonable body of professional/expert opinion that would say it was OK practice on an EICR to only test what you agreed you'd test regardless of the importance of the excluded tests - or if you could show the danger that the omitted tests would have found wouldn't have gotten fixed anyway. Again your defence will argue that testing what you'd said you wouldn't is for starters a breach of contract and could leave you liable.

I'm not a full-fledged lawyer by any manner of means so don't take the above as professional legal advice.

 

[trev]

I'm not a full-fledged lawyer by any manner of means so don't take the above as professional legal advice.

So you're a partly fledged lawyer then? A Electrical Trainee lawyer if you will?

 

[Badged01]

mmmm ...... so to the extreme you don't do any testing/inspection because you use limit/op reasons not to ( a quick drive by). You then give a "satisfactory" for continued use based on your caveates and the client (not technically minded as to what results do/do not mean) assumes all is good and carrys on as per normal safe in the knowledge he has this piece of paper which he is led to believe discharges his duties under the EAWR's.

I don't know the answer but I can imagine the legal wrangling you could well be caught up in. Guilty or not of any charges, the smoke without fire will be hanging around you and your business!

 

[NickD]

So you're a partly fledged lawyer then? A Electrical Trainee lawyer if you will?

Miaow I did most of a graduate diploma in law.

 

[trev]

Just ragging you Nick, sometimes the opportunities present themselves.
I always thought a diploma was a bit down from a degree though

 

[NickD]

mmmm ...... so to the extreme you don't do any testing/inspection because you use limit/op reasons not to ( a quick drive by). You then give a "satisfactory" for continued use based on your caveates and the client (not technically minded as to what results do/do not mean) assumes all is good and carrys on as per normal safe in the knowledge he has this piece of paper which he is led to believe discharges his duties under the EAWR's.

What I said before is only about potential liability of the person doing the testing. There's another question again which is the potential liability of the person agreeing the limitations. If you said or implied it would suit his purposes and then did something so limited it wouldn't, or failed to be competent in designing the limitations to suit the requirement, then I imagine you're going to be toast in court one way or another.

The Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory choice and Section E in general bothers me a bit because it talks about the installation in general and doesn't mention limitations. In Section D you have defined what installation you are talking about, and in the Declaration you do say you declare the report an accurate assessment within the extent and limitations so you're probably OK...but something about "within the limitations" in Section E as well might be no bad thing. Which of course you could write in there.

 

[NickD]

Just ragging you Nick, sometimes the opportunities present themselves.
I always thought a diploma was a bit down from a degree though

A GDL is not a degree cos you don't study the lawmaking of Timon of Athens in the 2nd century BC and etc. but the Law Society considers the two the same. Probably law graduates rage about GDL 5WWs as well, but plenty of people with no law degree have gone very far in the legal profession.

 

[trev]

Either way, you'd still have to do the LSF/Bar finals to be able to claim full qualification as a solicitor/barrister

 

[NickD]

Either way, you'd still have to do the LSF/Bar finals to be able to claim full qualification as a solicitor/barrister

Yeah, you have to do either accredited law degree or GDL; then for the solicitor route it's a year's Legal Practice Course (LPC) which is about joy like what form to fill in when, then you need to join a firm on a training contract for two years, then you can go for your Articles. Long and winding road without necessarily a lot of money at the end unless you're prepared to work hundred-hour weeks doing the kind of law you probably never wanted to do, making money for people with too much money already who you'd rather see up against the wall when the revolution comes.