Poor EICR report results in prosecution

[Grant1987]

Rather than the long suffering tax payer foot the bill, I vote the CPS do blitzkreig type testing on installs when notified on a rando basis all over the country. This way we are avoiding the tax burden and the schemes are earning the massive amount of wonga they are trousering from us.

Fair point, I like you’re idea more than mine ?

 

[Intoelectrics]

Stroma is no more, it was fully integrated into NAPIT earlier this year. I was a Stroma member for about 7 years and now Napit again! Having been with all of the governing bodies since part p was introduced at some point or another, I can honestly say that all of their technical assessments have been pretty much exactly the same. I cannot understand why and how incompetent people manage to get onto them!

Agreed, however the sparky in question may well be competent to carry out a proper inspection & test, but decided to either fudge it or just couldn't be arsed to do it properly. It's not uncommon to see this sort of thing, especially those that are open to bribes or monetary gains for little effort.

Again this sort of behaviour can tar the decent sparks with the same brush. For me the fine/punishment received in this case was not severe enough. Judges should make examples of poor tradespeople when opportunities arrive to do so, especially those that work in areas where people's lives maybe at risk.

 

[stevethesparks]

Most of my EICR's in the past took me most of the day, and was generally told how comprehensive my report was. However, in recent times (now retired) working for a colleague who undertakes a lot of EICR's for estate agents, I can see the pressure in time restrictions and trying to keep in with the agents. I suppose the answer is drop them, but easier said that done when its part of your bread and butter.

 

[UNG]

Rather than the long suffering tax payer foot the bill, I vote the CPS do blitzkreig type testing on installs when notified on a rando basis all over the country. This way we are avoiding the tax burden and the schemes are earning the massive amount of wonga they are trousering from us.

None of the current CPS should have any involvement in overseeing EICR's IMO they have had their chance and screwed it up. Time to look at a new system with a single central database of operatives with the necessary competence and a number of years of experience within the industry to carry out EICR's add into this a reporting system where EICR's can be randomly checked and the public can check the validity of an EICR and the person who has done it

Most of my EICR's in the past took me most of the day, and was generally told how comprehensive my report was. However, in recent times (now retired) working for a colleague who undertakes a lot of EICR's for estate agents, I can see the pressure in time restrictions and trying to keep in with the agents. I suppose the answer is drop them, but easier said that done when its part of your bread and butter.

I don't believe the time restrictions of the letting agent would be a valid defence when the stuff hits the fan, the guy doing the quick, cheap EICR is a disposible element of a letting agents business as they ery rarely have loyalty, they will move on to whoever is the cheapest and will do everything they can to distance themselves when you are the one in the dock

 

[Jamie89]

It does seem strange that a one man band has to be fully up to speed and assessed yet a big company can just have one person assessed. They should pick at random an employee and assess that person.. I guess the argument is as the QS they should be checking everything but unless they are onsite how can they check inspection?

When I did my 2391 it was interesting how it seemed everyone was pretty much on par when it came to the theory side. But the practical element seemed to catch people out, the two that went in before me, one ran out of time, the other just walked out after 20mins. The guy I did it with just could not find the third fault. I found all faults without even looking for them just by the process of testing and completed it with about an hour left, I would not say that hand it out like confetti and in my experience more than half failed the practical element, although I thought it was pretty basic... More of an issue is you dont actually even require 2391 or to be part of a CPS to do EICR's, maybe start with the low hanging fruit.

The difficulty for people coming into the industry is even the industry cannot decide categorically what code to give some things like no RCD for lighting circuits. I dont think this fine is going to put many off, if the guy was doing 7 EICR's a day at £100 a pop he is still quids in compared to someone charging £200 and only doing 2 a day, even with a fine. Stroma as far as I am aware are for domestic installers, EICR's should be for EAS only with inspection assessment via the CPS.

So what would you put down say a 40 year old install no IP rated lighting in the bathroom no RCD on the lighting circuit and no RCD on the shower. But with no apparent alteration from original install C3 or C2?

 

[Vortigern]

None of the current CPS should have any involvement in overseeing EICR's IMO

Maybe, maybe not. As far as I am concerned with Stroma and Napit they were not just asking for a cheque and handing out passes. As you no doubt know, if you did not know your onions you did not pass go. As far as slating the schemes, I am not too sure. If you were judging and a guy shows you some EICRS and a 2391 will you judge him competent or not to do EICR? How else would you judge the matter. But yes I agree maybe an independent auditor paid for by the schemes like a uber arching QS???

 

[Zlodej]

In sheffield half of the rental agencies have newer seen a letter from notification authority so unless forced by concils and them having to claim money from dogy sparky they will chose the easy cheap one.

Maybe, maybe not. As far as I am concerned with Stroma and Napit they were not just asking for a cheque and handing out passes. As you no doubt know, if you did not know your onions you did not pass go. As far as slating the schemes, I am not too sure. If you were judging and a guy shows you some EICRS and a 2391 will you judge him competent or not to do EICR? How else would you judge the matter. But yes I agree maybe an independent auditor paid for by the schemes like a uber arching QS???

I find it suspicious that most of the worst sparky's in sheffield seem to have a stroma stickers on their wan. Being with Napit myself I did like the in office exam (and loved their office location), with more then half of mine group being send back to sudies, but stroma does seem to have suspiciously bad record (atleast in Sheffield). Also in order for independent auditor to be objective, It would have to be again chosen by government/council as to remove motivation from passing to be good to customer (CPS) who pays them The problem with that would propably be Crapita or Amey.

 

[123]

a few years ago, a couple of forum members attended elex and showed the niceic blokes some pics of a terrible install by one of their members. the response was to get the end customer to complain before any action was considered.

Pretty sure it's the same with Gas Safe though, it's the customer who has to report the problem

 

[catdog1121]

So what would you put down say a 40 year old install no IP rated lighting in the bathroom no RCD on the lighting circuit and no RCD on the shower. But with no apparent alteration from original install C3 or C2?

Well it would depend if the lighting was in a zone or within easily touching while in the bath. If its on a ceiling and not actually touchable within the bath then does not need to be IP rated, I would probably C3 it though as per Napit code breakers "circuit supplying locations containing a bath or shower no 30ma RCD protection", otherwise would be a C2. Electrical safety first show an example of a recessed light above a bath but outside of zones not being IPX4 as requiring no code and specifically state that coding should be based on compliance with BS7671 not personal preference.

No RCD on the shower is probably a bit more difficult. You could argue C3 or if you read Napit code breakers under omission of an RCD you can just issue a C2 which given its location I personally would say C2 given its location so based on a simple in the head risk assessment...

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Usually it's the other way round....people producing dodgy reports as a means of generating work...

And I've carried out plenty of reports on 35-40 (est) installations where, apart from the odd shared neutral from time to time, the fixed wiring has visually and electrically tested ok...
More often than not it'll be the fire, IP and discrimination of the board that'll tug it...plus absence of any RCDs...