Queries regarding Inspection Report I've just had completed

[Butch]

Hi,
My first post so please go gentle on me!

I had an Inspection Report (EICR) completed on my house a week a go. It failed on two items:
1) Gap at the back of sockets in the utility (which I knew about, I meant to screw these down, but I only put them up loosely as I knew I had to take them down to plasterboard the wall at some point) - C1.
2) Excess copper showing - C2.

There is a comment on the report that the electrician was unable to complete the DEAD testing due to poor state of connections in the Consumer Unit even though the consumer unit did not fail the report.

The electrician is asking to be paid the full amount for the inspection even though as he states himself he was unable to complete the work. I assumed once I had resolved the C1 and C2 and CU connections (whatever he meant by that as he hasn't explained), that he would continue with the DEAD testing which would have been paid as part of the first invoice, however, he is advising that a full inspection would need to be carried out again at the full cost.

So, firstly, I am struggling to understand why he couldn't carry out the DEAD testing even when the CU didn't fail the test, was this a convenience thing as he stated on the report incorrect termination of neutral and earth conductors into their corresponding bars?

Secondly, once the C1 and c2 have been rectified, is it normal practice to do a complete test again or just re-check the failed items?

Does anybody know how long it takes to perform a DEAD test?

Also, the certificate he has issued has "This is not a valid certificate/report. This is a preview only" written all over it, making it difficult to read, again is this normal, will he issue the valid one when I have paid him?

I have gone back to the electrician with queries but it is almost like he can't be bothered to explain anything, I've asked him for locations of various things but he is very vague in his responses. Just wondered if this is normal practice.

 

[SparkyChick]

Welcome to the forums.

I take the view the job isn't complete until the full certificate has been issued as that is what you've paid for.

Unless it's seriously bad, I wouldn't expect to complete a new inspection. I would issue certificates for the work carried out, but you wouldn't get a certificate that says satisfactory at the end of it. You'd have the unsatisfactory and certificates covering the work carried out to correct the issues.

Can you post a copy of the report (with identifying information removed) and possibly pictures of what it is he's saying require attention? Obviously only take pictures if it's safe to do so.

 

[littlespark]

Its an EICR, basically a REPORT... its not a CERTIFICATE. Its not a case of a pass or a fail.
Its there to tell you, the customer, the condition of the installation and that some things may need attended to.
Whether you get them done or not is up to you.

That said, is the EICR been arranged so you can sell the property, or rent it out? In which case any dangerous faults would need repaired, with a test certificate that supercedes the remarks made in the EICR.

The only thing I can think of with the CU is it being a really old fusebox where the terminal screw heads have sheared off - meaning he cannot disconnect anything to do the testing properly.

The guy isn't being very professional saying he has to do another full test at full price again. That's just extracting the urine.

 

[FatAlan]

This is where I think people get upset and confused over EICRs as they are a report on the condition of an installation at a point in time.
Probably comes down to the actual agreement between the spark and customer and what the customers reqirements are. As SC above and I’m sure you’ll get some good pointers from the experienced sparks on here.

 

[Butch]

Hi, thanks for a quick response...

I wasn't sure if you wanted the entire report or just the bits where the electrician has made his comments and the list of failures, I've provided the latter but if you want me to post the full report I can do.

 

[AJshep]

Before I carry out a EICR I always agree the extent of limitations with the client.

Im not sure why the electrician didn't carry out the dead tests if this was agreed. When the consumer unit is in a bad state I usally do ring continuity at a socket outlet.
Once the remedial work is you would be expected to recieve a EIC ( which covers the corrected work) and a covering letter which states the installation is now in satisfactory condition.
I wouldnt expect to pay for a EICR twice.
But Its easy to comment on this without seeing the reports.

 

[Butch]

Hi to all that have responded and thanks...

AJshep...you have said exactly what I would have expected, however, what if I carried out the remedial work myself, would this make a difference to getting it tested, would the remedial work and only the remedial work need checking or would it require an entire check again?

 

[MFS Electrical]

There are ways in which the dead testing can be carried out even when the terminations aren’t in their appropriate location as AJ said RFC can be done from a socket rather than the board and a global R1+R2 test can be achieved by isolating the DB and putting a jumper from the busbar to the earth bar then switching each MCB to the on position 1 at a time while the Main switch is obviously locked off then obtaining the readings it’s not hard and actually causes less disruption and is less likely to introduce faults than disconnecting one circuit at a time.

 

[SparkyChick]

This is my take on the points raised.... Firstly, did you agree the limitations with him before hand?

Items....

1. C3 is fine, won't result in unsatisfactory
2. C3 is fine, won't result in unsatisfactory, however if that's the only reason he didn't do dead testing... he's a muppet
3, 4, 5 - I think one C3 would have been enough for the lack of labelling. Fairly common problem on older installs
6 - Guessing this is CPC sleeving... again, fairly common on older installs not to find any
7, 9, 10, 11 - Personally, I don't think these need to be listed as for existing installations this should usually be a limitation on the entire report. What I find quite interesting though is 16. He's obviously looked at enough to establish that in his opinion there is an excess of junction boxes (which are usually tucked away in the fabric of the build). However... this isn't strictly against the regulations. Being unable to access them for inspection purposes is (if they are screw type) but providing they are well terminated, an excess is not a breach of the regulations, it's just not good practice
12 - If I come across situations like that, I simply re-terminate and comment on a continuation page. It takes hardly any time.
13 - Did he say where?
14 - Loose accessories, justifies a comment
15 - Valid point
17 - I can't read

It's interesting he makes the point about knockout boxes and exposed live parts but doesn't list the junction box in the loft with no cover on it, just a comment.

At the very minimum, he could have conducted a global IR test on the whole installation. Would have been better than nothing, or could have pulled the fuses and just carried out a 250v L-E test for each circuit and then possibly a global N-E test and possibly even a by circuit L-N test (with all other neutrals connected). There are ways and means of getting some results if you're intent on doing the best job you can. I would caveat those results on a continuation page.

Please note.. these are my opinions only based solely on the content of the report.

 

[telectrix]

if i was diong the report, any problems that could be resovled without major work would br fixed.