How many EICRs in a day?

[sparkside1]

Hi all

I have recently been offered a job carrying out large quantities of EICRs. The manager has stated that he wants 4 EICRs done in a day. The properties are small 3 bed houses all on the same housing estate. Is this possible based on a normal working day? He is offering a day rate of pay but the hours are not known as yet. I was told that I would have 2 hours to complete one. :sweatdrop:

 

[Octopus]

I would venture to suggest that you would be producing pointless EICR's unless the limitations are long and agreed before hand. 4 per day including the paperwork in a working day - Nope.

 

[Pete999]

This will be just a form filling exercise, no chance of doing 4 EICRs properly in a working day, could be tantamount to a fraud scam with your name on the paperwork, my advice, stay well away.

 

[Plonker 3]

Seems like EICRs are becoming the new PAT. These days, no one wants to pay for it so wants it doing as cheaply and quickly as possible.

 

[sparkside1]

Seems like EICRs are becoming the new PAT. These days, no one wants to pay for it so wants it doing as cheaply and quickly as possible.

It is a big contract with one major housing company that rents hundreds of properties. Some occupied some void and I think the contractor has promised that he can deliver x amount of inspections in a small time frame.

The job also offered a van when advertised and at interview I found out that a van would only be issued once the contract had finished as we would be travelling to site in mini buses to save sending lots of vehicles?

 

[Pete999]

Is this an agency contract? with some suit creaming dosh off the top

 

[Brightspark2]

No chance of doing 4 EICR properly in day...

 

[dan86]

echoing the other guys thoughts here.but me thinks you knew the answer before you asked anyway ;-)
was there not a similar thread a couple of weeks ago..?

 

[telectrix]

It is a big contract with one major housing company that rents hundreds of properties. Some occupied some void and I think the contractor has promised that he can deliver x amount of inspections in a small time frame.

The job also offered a van when advertised and at interview I found out that a van would only be issued once the contract had finished as we would be travelling to site in mini buses to save sending lots of vehicles?

horse drawn, of course. with a desk inside to fill in the certs as you drive past.

 

[Plonker 3]

It is a big contract with one major housing company that rents hundreds of properties. Some occupied some void and I think the contractor has promised that he can deliver x amount of inspections in a small time frame.

So the main contractor has got no idea about the work they have quoted for.

 

[Pete999]

No mate it's just some Aurthur Daley type jumping on the money making scams, I've had a little experience of these gits, parasites all of them

 

[sparkside1]

No mate it's just some Aurthur Daley type jumping on the money making scams, I've had a little experience of these gits, parasites all of them

The thing is, they are a "reputable" Electrical Contractor unfortunately they have a greedy salesman who appeared quite cock sure about the number of contracts that he has just won.

I told him in interview that it would take half a day to complete an EICR thinking I was being efficient. He smiled and said 2 hours. I immediately thought, he wants them knocked out and does the NIC know what he's up to?

Does this position seem like a temporary contract job?

The post was advertised as permanent through the agency and again stated by the contractor. I have just been made redundant so not really in a position to turn work down but my principles are feeling shaky!

 

[Plonker 3]

Company vehicle once this contract has finished, wants you to rush EICRs in 2 hours. Salesman interviewing you. Sounds like they want you temporary.


May be worth contacting NIC and seeing their stance, especially as one of their contractors has just been prosecuted for a problem with a EICR they carried out.

 

[ian.settle1]

Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole your name will be on the certificate something goes seriously wrong you will be in front off the man with the white wig and black gown.

 

[SJD]

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.

 

[sparkside1]

That is what I was thinking.
I would have to IR the whole db with socket and light switches off.
Take Zs measurements and calculate R1+R2 values or R2 lead test at furthest point.
I don't believe there are RCDs in these properties so that saves time.
All the properties are modular and exactly the same.
The contractor said he will only deal with C1s.
The visual inspection would be done in 10 minutes on the fly.
The paperwork would have to be filled in on the way home in the back of the wagon.
The company are apparently well respected and known by NICEIC?
Surely there would have to be some pre-arranged limitations stated in the contract?
They said that any remedial works would be subbed out so broken rings would just be put down as a fail or C1.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Getting bused in, lugging all your gear around on foot, 4 a day...
Run away fast my friend!

 

[Engineer54]

There you go, inform NICEIC that one of their registered AC members are conducting full EICR's for a housing association in 2 hours. Then ask, do they really need another court case where their members are being prosecuted for failing to adequately test, (causing the death of another child) along with falsifying test report sheets?? Let's see what happens, ....but don't whatever you do, hold your breath!!

It is out and out fraud whatever way you look at it, as any official document issued, isn't worth the paper it's written on... I would also go as far as saying the housing association is just as liable, for not conducting regular site visits ensuring work being undertaken, meets the criteria of the contract specifications awarded to this cowboy outfit!!

 

[guest119]

Walk away S1, you know you are beter than that/this.

Boydy

 

[Pete999]

What scam does this firm belong to?

 

[sparkside1]

What scam does this firm belong to?

NICEIC and ECA

 

[NickD]

The contractor said he will only deal with C1s...broken rings would just be put down as a fail or C1.

So they would let people live in a potentially dangerous, unsatisfactory installation then? Nice. Broken ring is not a C1 (unless it's broken by a big hole in the wall with conductors hanging out) and putting it down as such to make them fix it cos they'll only fix C1s is just *removed*

 

[trev]

So they would let people live in a potentially dangerous, unsatisfactory installation then? Nice. Broken ring is not a C1 (unless it's broken by a big hole in the wall with conductors hanging out) and putting it down as such to make them fix it cos they'll only fix C1s is just *removed*.

Not necessarily. Somewhere in all this there is a line which tells us another company has the repair contract, as a result the property owner has most likely stipulated that the testing company are only to rectify any C1s they find.
Having done a fair bit of decent homes work in my time I can tell you that if a property fails it isn't unusual for tenants to continue living in the property until repairs are scheduled. Obviously if the place was lethal then they'd be moved out but those occassions are, thankfully, quite rare

 

[NickD]

Not necessarily. Somewhere in all this there is a line which tells us another company has the repair contract, as a result the property owner has most likely stipulated that the testing company are only to rectify any C1s they find.

Ah, OK, must have missed that one, cheers.

 

[nickblake]

No .simple answer 2 if you are lucky 4 in a Day no hope on earth and any one who does then needs to replace there van with a Horse , an inspection is one of the most important part of the job and requires a lot of experience , no one to police it no one gives a Dam only time something will ever be done about these rushed EICR's is when an MP's Daughter gets Electrocuted after one was done ,after all that's how Part P originated

 

[telectrix]

bit of luck would be a MP getting electrocuted. i'd expect a minimum of a knighthood.

 

[Amp David]

I struggle to get 1 done inc all the paperwork in a day!:rolleyes4:

 

[trev]

I struggle to get 1 done inc all the paperwork in a day!:rolleyes4:

Only because you're lazy

 

[telectrix]

says him who, for the last 2 years, has been too lazy to have a signature.

 

[wozz]

No .simple answer 2 if you are lucky 4 in a Day no hope on earth and any one who does then needs to replace there van with a Horse , an inspection is one of the most important part of the job and requires a lot of experience , no one to police it no one gives a Dam only time something will ever be done about these rushed EICR's is when an MP's Daughter gets Electrocuted after one was done ,after all that's how Part P originated

unsure of the details but from what I remember it was a handyman putting up a cooker hood that caused the fault that killed her, so not sure where the eicr comes in to it.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Definitely just the one for me.. and that doesn't include getting all the paperwork completed!

 

[Engineer54]

Think you're all missing the point, ....the OP has been officially told the company allows 2 hours per EICR!! Which as we all KNOW is an impossibility, unless there are that many limitations being made, to render the EICR a totally pointless exercise in the first place...

So if this is an official company policy for this housing association contract, (2 hour EICR's) then something is very wrong!!

 

[Pete999]

Agree with 54 bloody firms like this one the OP describes are nothing but Rooster Cogburns (cowboys) someone in one of the scams, politicos or the ESC should be on them like a dose of the pox

 

[sparkside1]

If it were just the EICRs that would be one thing. The lack of company vehicle until end of contract, the day rate of pay, just taking on light commercial maintenance and PAT testing for speed of job completion. The recruiter lying to me about the large number of sparks hired in one hit. As I said, I am in no position to turn down work but even then, the "salesman" said he hires people to do these EICRs and they fail to deliver! So when I only manage 2, I'll be out the door......

 

[Pete999]

Mate, they are con merchants, taking the proverbial, extracting the urine, I appreciate it's work, but at the end of the day it's your name on the piece of paper, because that's all it represents, 4 EICRs per day get real

 

[Badged01]

I still question that regardless of the limitations etc ... areed with the client (who one assumes is not electrically competent) you as an electrical competent inspector are signing off a satisfactory report (again assuming its satisfactory!!) in the knowledge that everything has not been fully tested & inspected and its effectively worthless for electrical safety?. Does this constitute giving the client the 'professional' impression that the limitations are OK and the premises are safe (satisfactory for continued use)?. I would have thought as a minimum it questions the professional integrity of the inspector in doing it and issuing a worthless piece of paper?.

I don't know of a case where an 'accident' post one of these highly limited EICR's has been investigated and what the outcome was for the inspector. Was what the inspector did taken as totally acceptable or was there some culpibility on his shoulders for issuing such a report?

Anyone know of such a case?!?!

 

[SJD]

I still question that regardless of the limitations etc ... areed with the client (who one assumes is not electrically competent) you as an electrical competent inspector are signing off a satisfactory report (again assuming its satisfactory!!) in the knowledge that everything has not been fully tested & inspected and its effectively worthless for electrical safety?. Does this constitute giving the client the 'professional' impression that the limitations are OK and the premises are safe (satisfactory for continued use)?. I would have thought as a minimum it questions the professional integrity of the inspector in doing it and issuing a worthless piece of paper?.

As you say, the client is generally not electrically competent, and probably doesn't understand what is or is not appropriate re limitations.

I came across EICRs for a couple of care homes, where it had been stated that "up to 50%" of circuits would be tested, and guess what, the easy ones had been tested (e.g. immersion, cooker), and I was there because there were now issues with the untested ones. In this case, I think the original electricians had been a bit less than honest, because it was a surprise to the manager what had not been tested (and thus not found).

However, there are also those who are only having the electrics tested to get a piece of paper e.g. prior to letting, who don't really care what is actually done, all that matters is the price. I think in this case, the letting agents know but would claim to have done their job.

 

[Badged01]

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?

 

[Badged01]

Not quite the same but similar to an MOT ...... you've passed and can get out on the road now but i havent done all these checks. However the radio, wipers and interior lights work!

 

[fredrico]

These companies go in cheap to get the work, then you have to work your balls off so as they get some money back. I have worked for some. You have not got a chance in hell to do 4, 2 at most. Don't forget that most of the houses will be full of **** do as you will struggle to get to a lot of things which will slow you down. Walk away.

 

[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.