Queries regarding Inspection Report I've just had completed

[Risteard]

That would be your choice but on the same note I wouldn't omit dead tests because they are incorrectly ordered unless wired in singles that would need a bit of time to trace out, like I said, it takes no time at all given your already doing dead tests to just correct the order and it comes across in a positive light when you pass on to the customer you have resolved one of the issues, to me it makes good business sense and it's little things like that that gets your name out there.. I have never needed to advertise in my 10yrs self employed, I would say that that is partly to do with my business attitude and professional approach, I not saying you are wrong here so don't take that from it, I just find my approach works very well.

What dead tests would you carry out during periodic inspection and testing? Insulation resistance is the only one I would do (assuming that the installation could be de-energised for the test) and would not be with individual circuits but the installation in parallel as required by BS7671. I don't see any reason to be disturbing connections in the DB - although I would be checking tightness of terminals.

Correcting any defects is not the purpose of periodic inspection and testing and is not something I would do. It would be quoted separately as a completely separate job.

 

[Butch]

Sorry Butch, strange that the price wasn’t mentioned all though the thread.
Hope it all goes well from now on.
Work with a good spark that you trust.
If you have the ‘nextdoor’ app Where you are ask for recommendations. I’M not even going to mention the amount of threads mentioning ‘trusted trader’ it’ll only wind you up!

Hi Rpa07, no worries, I didn't want any bad feelings between us and the electrician although I did say I wasn't completely happy with the service I received from him. Off to try and find a decent sparky again...thanks again for your help.

 

[Butch]

Putting this to bed now guys...thanks for all your assistance and help with my queries, you have been complete pros even essex and buzz who took time out to patronise me , all the best.

 

[Risteard]

That would be your choice but on the same note I wouldn't omit dead tests because they are incorrectly ordered unless wired in singles that would need a bit of time to trace out, like I said, it takes no time at all given your already doing dead tests to just correct the order and it comes across in a positive light when you pass on to the customer you have resolved one of the issues, to me it makes good business sense and it's little things like that that gets your name out there.. I have never needed to advertise in my 10yrs self employed, I would say that that is partly to do with my business attitude and professional approach, I not saying you are wrong here so don't take that from it, I just find my approach works very well.

What dead tests would you carry out during periodic inspection and testing? Insulation resistance is the only one I would do (assuming that the installation could be de-energised for the test) and would not be with individual circuits but the installation in parallel as required by BS7671. I don't see any reason to be disturbing connections in the DB - although I would be checking tightness of terminals.

Correcting any defects is not the purpose of periodic inspection and testing and is not something I would do. It would be quoted separately as a completely separate job

I'll try to make this as clear as possible...the service I required was an EICR, obviously, the EICR consists of the electrician carrying out a set procedures, lets say for example, the governing body created this report that consisted of 50 checks. So, lets try to make this clearer, so instead of saying to an electrician I want an EICR report, lets say I want 50 checks to be carried out. He turns to me and says, I will charge you £200 to carry out those 50 checks, this forms a verbal agreement. When the electrician only carries out say 30 of those checks say, I don't expect to pay for 50! The time issue was only mentioned to reinforce what I was saying, your fellow colleagues seemed to understand that.

I'm afraid you are misinformed.

There is no set procedure for what should and shouldn't be included in the inspection. That is all down to what is agreed between the client and the customer. This is precisely why there are "extent" and "limitations" boxes included within these forms.
.

 

[Deleted account]

A bit disappointed I missed this thread earlier so I could have my input, but here it is anyway.

I've got to agree wth Essex on this one. I'm actually quite suprised he is in a minority.

If I went to do an EICR and found an installation to be in such a mess as would make it near impossible to do all the testing until it was sorted I would test what I could then issue the report.
I would state a recommendation for works to tidy up the board, but it's not the job of the inspector to do this during the inspection.

If the board was only changed recently I would recommend getting the previous installer back to put it right.

I certainly wouldn't be very happy if my money was with held unjustly.

 

[Butch]

What dead tests would you carry out during periodic inspection and testing? Insulation resistance is the only one I would do (assuming that the installation could be de-energised for the test) and would not be with individual circuits but the installation in parallel as required by BS7671. I don't see any reason to be disturbing connections in the DB - although I would be checking tightness of terminals.

Correcting any defects is not the purpose of periodic inspection and testing and is not something I would do. It would be quoted separately as a completely separate job

I'm afraid you are misinformed.

There is no set procedure for what should and shouldn't be included in the inspection. That is all down to what is agreed between the client and the customer. This is precisely why there are "extent" and "limitations" boxes included within these forms.
.

There is a "schedule of inspections" which looks to me like a list of items that need to be carried out where possible. There are obviously limitations to what he can actually tick off on the list as being tested/checked, for example, "cables correctly supported through out their length" or "installed in prescribed zones" which unless the electrician had x-ray vision couldn't possible know. The only thing I know, was that I engaged with an electrician to perform an inspection report, he did not discuss the limitations or extent with me, he did not make me aware of what he was doing or what he couldn't do, all I know is that I paid for an inspection, if these dead tests aren't part of the inspection then great, I'm happy to pay him the full amount, however I don't think this is the case and that the dead tests are part of the inspection report, he didn't say they were, but in the same instance he didn't say they weren't and by the fact he stated he was apparently unable to do them implies they were part of it.

A bit disappointed I missed this thread earlier so I could have my input, but here it is anyway.

I've got to agree wth Essex on this one. I'm actually quite suprised he is in a minority.

If I went to do an EICR and found an installation to be in such a mess as would make it near impossible to do all the testing until it was sorted I would test what I could then issue the report.
I would state a recommendation for works to tidy up the board, but it's not the job of the inspector to do this during the inspection.

If the board was only changed recently I would recommend getting the previous installer back to put it right.

I certainly wouldn't be very happy if my money was with held unjustly.

So you agree with essex, I'm a nightmare customer and with holding money, firstly thank you for your insult. Secondly, bad electricians whose attitudes stink also exist as well as nightmare customers, so it's good of you to read the whole thread objectively. Thirdly, the service I felt was poor, with regards taking time off work and being told he couldn't make it, to lack of communication whereby he wrote on the report "customer has been informed" when no such conversation had taken place, and on top of that charging me for the dead tests which he hadn't performed. I have paid him the full invoice as I don't want any bad feelings yet I am the customer from hell and he's a sparky who we all know are saints.

 

[Deleted account]

Sorry you feel that way butch. Just giving my opinion.

I have made no comment about the Sparks lack of communication or the taking time of work issue as I was relaying my opinion on the work actually carried out. The EICR.

I have also not commented on any sparks attitude or have I claimed anyone is a nightmare customer.

 

[Butch]

Sorry you feel that way butch. Just giving my opinion.

I have made no comment about the Sparks lack of communication or the taking time of work issue as I was relaying my opinion on the work actually carried out. The EICR.

I have also not commented on any sparks attitude or have I claimed anyone is a nightmare customer.

Hi Pete, essex said I was a nightmare customer, when you said you agree with essex, then obviously the implication is that you think I am a nightmare customer. However, I don't take it personally, so no worries.

 

[buzzlightyear]

we now must draw a line under this post Pee pee, cause thier is a lesson learned for the op .

 

[Deleted account]

Sorry butch, I accept the implication with me agreeing with Essex would justify you thinking this. I should have been a bit more clear. My agreeing with Essex is only so far as works.

 

[Butch]

Sorry butch, I accept the implication with me agreeing with Essex would justify you thinking this. I should have been a bit more clear. My agreeing with Essex is only so far as works.

As I said Pete, no worries, thanks for your input.

 

[Risteard]

There is a "schedule of inspections" which looks to me like a list of items that need to be carried out where possible.

Again, this is a lack of understanding on your part. Many parts of the Schedule of Inspections may not be relevant to your installation, and as already made clear it is all subject to the extent and limitations. There aren't really mandatory parts to a periodic inspection. Essentially determining that disconnection times can be met for ADS to operate effectively is the main goal, which is down to live testing. (Again, subject to extent and limitations - e.g. this may be a percentage in a larger installation rather than the entire installation.)

 

[Nigel]

I'll try to make this as clear as possible...the service I required was an EICR, obviously, the EICR consists of the electrician carrying out a set procedures, lets say for example, the governing body created this report that consisted of 50 checks. So, lets try to make this clearer, so instead of saying to an electrician I want an EICR report, lets say I want 50 checks to be carried out. He turns to me and says, I will charge you £200 to carry out those 50 checks, this forms a verbal agreement. When the electrician only carries out say 30 of those checks say, I don't expect to pay for 50! The time issue was only mentioned to reinforce what I was saying, your fellow colleagues seemed to understand that.

Deary me. You are clueless. I was right - nightmare customer.

 

[richy3333]

Late to the party but thought I'd have my say too ...

It strikes me that there is a lack of understanding or misunderstanding between the OP and the inspector on what should or was agreed to be dome, or not done? Taking at face value what the OP says (no reason to disbelieve him) he wanted a full inspect and test, but didn't get it? No mention has been made of the inspector issuing any T&C's or covering correspondence string what would and wouldn't be done?

GN3 at 3.8.3 states at the very beginning of the section: 'NOTE: The following advice is not applicable to domestic or simple installations as the extent and method of inspection and testing is rudimentary in such installations in comparison with more complex installations'. Therefore the remainder of the advice is targeted at complex installations where for example it might not be possible to turn the power off etc.

I would therefore draw from the IET statement that a complete suite of tests (dead and live) should be done in a domestic situation unless there is good cause not to do so )or for some reason it has been agreed with the customer not to do something?. (The only example that springs to mind is on an old 3086 CU where the copper screw heads were so mashed up we couldn't undo the conductor(s) to test. Just my opinion but the conductors being out of sync is not a good cause to NOT dead test.

It's inspecting and testing so I wouldn't be repairing stuff as I go unless it something that warrants a C1 code. I'd fix it if there client agreed or else issue a danger notice to cover myself.

I get the impression that the inspector may not be the greatest communicator and also be too inexperienced to undertake this type of work. GN3 at 3.8.1 says ' It is important that the competency of the person carrying out the periodic inspection and test is of the appropriate level having gained sufficient education, experience and knowledge to be fully conversant with the aspects required of carrying out such an important inspection'.

Personally I wouldn't have paid the invoice but then again I would not I&T a house for that sum of money. If the OP cant get any joy from the inspector he should speak to the NICEIC. It's not known if this person is a 'domestic installer (DI)' or an Approved Contractor. I also don't know if the NICEIC guarantee scheme includes DI, but there's the possibility of making a claim under the scheme?

Just my thoughts.

 

[richy3333]

If you said he was there for 2-3 hours, that's an outrageous amount of money. I'm doing one this week, I plan on being there around 5-6 hours and I'll be charging less than what you're being charged.

Just to explain. I gave you a 'disagree' about this post. It's nothing personal (honestly) but how anyone can maintain a viable business at those sort of rates I really dont know.

 

[Risteard]

I would therefore draw from the IET statement that a complete suite of tests (dead and live) should be done in a domestic situation unless there is good cause not to do so )or for some reason it has been agreed with the customer not to do something?

Only if you ignore the statement in GN3 that cpc continuity can be verified through live loop testing. Dead testing for cpc continuity is designed to ensure that the installation is not energised with unearthed parts. This caution is no longer necessary when the installation is already energised, as any potential danger already exists.

Dead testing may be useful for ensuring that exposed conductive parts are earthed where it is difficult to disconnect these for Zs testing. In this instance it would be R2 testing and not R1+R2 testing. (Think of a heavy chandelier or whatever.)

 

[SparkyChick]

Just to explain. I gave you a 'disagree' about this post. It's nothing personal (honestly) but how anyone can maintain a viable business at those sort of rates I really dont know.

In this part of the world I'm considered to be middle of the road on pricing as far as I can tell.

I don't do many EICRs because normally it's a full day around the £240 mark. Most people are getting them in 2/3 hours for £80-£120. I can't compete with that because I like to be thorough so I can sleep at night.

In this case it's a bit of a favour for a forum member who needed one quick, so I figure karma will pay me back at some point in the future

 

[Darkwood]

What dead tests would you carry out during periodic inspection and testing? Insulation resistance is the only one I would do (assuming that the installation could be de-energised for the test) and would not be with individual circuits but the installation in parallel as required by BS7671. I don't see any reason to be disturbing connections in the DB - although I would be checking tightness of terminals.

Correcting any defects is not the purpose of periodic inspection and testing and is not something I would do. It would be quoted separately as a completely separate job.

Firstly I was commenting in the context of the thread 'domestic' so I have very rarely ever seen a reason not do a full compliment of tests, I would though agree that commercial and industrial can be somewhat of a challenge if they are a mess and this would impact on testing time thus I would discuss with the customer but domestic is seriously not going to be a big issue of putting the cores back in the correct order once you have tested.

How would you ensure without removing cpc from its terminal that one is not picking up parallel paths?, when doing R2 or R1+R2, you are ensuring that the earthing for that particular circuit is not broken, damaged or high resistance etc, measuring ELI when energised only proves an earth path exists but it doesn't confirm the integrity or the circuit earth itself, think boiler supply where an earth path may be present through the pipework itself even if the boiler supply earth was broken.

 

[ipf]

Putting this to bed now guys...thanks for all your assistance and help with my queries, you have been complete pros even essex and buzz who took time out to patronise me , all the best.

Patronise, eh?.
People seem to jump to conclusions an awful lot. I like to see things from all sides before offering advice on an issue of which I don't personally know all the ins and outs.
There could be much more involved, from both sides. Things look a bit iffy from the contractor's side with the info put forward but the full facts are not known. We are receiving info from a source unknown to us...info which indicates the OP carrying out electrical installation and/or alterations to his own property. Is he competent to carry out this work? Well, it seems not if no initial certificate was produced. He mentions family safety, following the EICR....what about prior to it, following the work carried out?
I am not jumping to conclusions... I've seen plenty 'being led down the wrong path' following such 'leaping'.
By the way, I don't see what trades persons being 'complete pros' has to do with offering free advice.

 

[Risteard]

How would you ensure without removing cpc from its terminal that one is not picking up parallel paths?

Certainly there may be parallel paths. However you should remember that you are specifically advised not to unnecessarily dismantle and reassemble the installation as this is more likely to introduce faults than to find them. I would state with absolute confidence that (R1+R2) testing is almost always wholly inappropriate for periodic inspection and testing. (It can be useful if there is no supply - e.g. Economy 7 or a de-energised installation or whatever.)