Queries regarding Inspection Report I've just had completed

[Nigel]

LOL...well I've been well and truly ripped off, he originally advised the work would take aprox 3hrs to complete the Inspection report, as it transpired, he shot off an hour early as he couldn't complete the DEAD testing due to the order of the conductors in the CU, he arrived at 12:40 and was gone by 14:40...£192 for two hours work, not a bad hourly rate if you can get it. I think my GP is on less than that!!

It is not the testers fault your installation is so poor he cannot test. You got quotes and went with cost over competence. That is your choice and you need to live with it. What he earns in two hours is none of your concern. Would you have paid him more if it took him longer?

 

[buzzlightyear]

It is not the testers fault your installation is so poor he cannot test. You got quotes and went with cost over competence. That is your choice and you need to live with it. What he earns in two hours is none of your concern. Would you have paid him more if it took him longer

one did try and tell him .

 

[Risteard]

I do think there is issue with how the inspection was carried out here although many relevant points have also been raised in this thread, unless the installation is wired in singles then I see no issue with doing dead tests regardless of the N/E connection order, it seems like a lazy attitude not to do the tests then put them back in the correct order.
I agree the EICR is a report on the installation as it stands but some issues can simply be resolved by the inspector if they go in with a professional attitude to start with.
I also am confused about the numerous joint box comment, unless these are somehow impeding the safety of the installation then there is nothing wrong with it, every electrical point in your house is technically a joint anyway.
I see within this thread that we have 2 issues, the OP's misinterpretation as to what an EICR is and what seems to be an unprofessional approach by the Electrician who could have carried out the dead tests (unless they were all in singles) by simply following the live wire to the common cable to test the N/E.

Any limitations in the report as already mentioned should have been discussed prior or during the testing, if you were not present then at a convenient point before the report was written then at least you would have been fully informed before the report was issued.

There's absolutely no way I'd be correcting the order of neutral and cpc connections as part of an EICR. Remedial works are completely separate. Also R1+R2 testing wouldn't be entertained - I'd verify cpc continuity through live testing as the installation is already energised.

 

[Butch]

Sounds like a nightmare customer to me. Done a poor job trying to save himself a few quid. Wants an electrician to bail him out with certification and now does not like what he is reading so threatening not to pay him.

Should have got a sparks in from the start. Your family will be living in that house.

LOL...I've been surprised I've had to wait this long for a generalisation like this, there is always one, thank you, you haven't disappointed, it's taken you a while but you are here at last.

Just to clarify, I am perfectly happy to pay him, that isn't the dispute, it failed, that's fine, however, like most people, I don't like paying for something that I was originally quoted for that hasn't been done, he quoted me for a full inspection which he hasn't done.

However, I take heart in the responses from your fellow electricians who have been nothing but decent, helpful and informative professionals...not someone who comes jumping in with both left feet and embarrasses themselves by jumping to the wrong conclusions .

 

[Butch]

It is not the testers fault your installation is so poor he cannot test. You got quotes and went with cost over competence. That is your choice and you need to live with it. What he earns in two hours is none of your concern. Would you have paid him more if it took him longer?

Wow, you and Buzz stick out a mile from your fellow professionals in your attitude, you probably know the guy who did my inspection!

Joking aside, in response to your comment "It is not the testers fault your installation is so poor he cannot test."...totally agree, of course it isn't, however, in the world I live in, people pay for the actual work carried out or is it different in your world?

"You got quotes and went with cost over competence."...yes I agree, although I'm not entirely sure it was incompetence, I wouldn't like to accuse the guy of not being good at his job as I have no idea, it might be what you are portraying, a bitterness towards people that try and do the electrics themselves.

"What he earns in two hours is none of your concern."...it is when I'm paying him for 3 when he has only worked 2!

 

[Darkwood]

There's absolutely no way I'd be correcting the order of neutral and cpc connections as part of an EICR. Remedial works are completely separate. Also R1+R2 testing wouldn't be entertained - I'd verify cpc continuity through live testing as the installation is already energised.

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.

 

[Nigel]

Wow, you and Buzz stick out a mile from your fellow professionals in your attitude, you probably know the guy who did my inspection!

Joking aside, in response to your comment "It is not the testers fault your installation is so poor he cannot test."...totally agree, of course it isn't, however, in the world I live in, people pay for the actual work carried out or is it different in your world?

"You got quotes and went with cost over competence."...yes I agree, although I'm not entirely sure it was incompetence, I wouldn't like to accuse the guy of not being good at his job as I have no idea, it might be what you are portraying, a bitterness towards people that try and do the electrics themselves.

"What he earns in two hours is none of your concern."...it is when I'm paying him for 3 when he has only worked 2!

So you employed someone and never even checked their competence? Wow!

Your post, with respect only highlights how clueless you are to how electricians do things.

You have paid him to do a report. You have not paid him to do three hours work. You have a report and it may or may not be worth the paper it is written on and that can be debated. However; whether he takes one hour of seven the price is the price.

 

[Butch]

you have done some work butch, It is down to the inspector at the time to give a sat or unsat on the test cert .I'm not defending the said spark .looking at the test cert I seen it . you are now in a predicament .whether to speak to him and get the work passed or request another spark to do the work and pass it .

Buzz - yes you are right, I need to sort it with either the original spark or get a new one, taking the advice from your fellow pros, I think the wise choice might be getting another one and writing this off as a bad experience. Sounds like most people on here have more interaction with their customers and explain what needs to be done rather than handing over a report and disappearing. It's like any other business, if you want to be successful you have to build a relationship with your customer and not have a grudge which is what I think it is, he would have done us both a favour and turned down the job if he didn't want it.

 

[Butch]

So you employed someone and never even checked their competence? Wow!

Your post, with respect only highlights how clueless you are to how electricians do things.

You have paid him to do a report. You have not paid him to do three hours work. You have a report and it may or may not be worth the paper it is written on and that can be debated. However; whether he takes one hour of seven the price is the price.

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.

 

[Butch]

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.

Being from the 'other-side', as a customer I completely and utterly agree with what you are saying. Someone with your attitude are like gold dust, very difficult to find (no matter what the trade). Being the father of a son who also runs his own business, again I couldn't agree more with what you say, part of running a successful business is building that relationship with a customer and little things that make you stand out from the average go a long way. If you have that attitude, I think the only thing that can stop you being very successful is ones own ambition.

 

[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.)

 

[Darkwood]

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.)

I find it strange that you consider dropping a wire out of a terminal as unnecessarily dismantling the installation, I would consider lifting floorboards up etc is what this little area is covering, otherwise as I have expressed already, how can you ensure the integrity of the earth of a circuit when you can get a false positive through parallel paths, I will agree in certain situations it may be warranted that limitations exists to doing a test but these are the exemptions not the rule.
I was taught to do a full set of tests to ensure the integrity of a circuit and this requires both energised and dead tests for the very reason I have raised about ensuring the integrity of the earth itself and you don't get a false positive, as far as I am aware all the testing guides and advice out there recommends the complete set of tests where possible, I think you are misinterpreting the part about unnecessarily dismantling, unless it has drastically changed then it did once mean pulling the infrastructure and/or fitted furniture apart just to access a joint to give one of many examples... I cannot ever see this applies to removing an Earth or a Neutral from its terminal block, that isn't exactly what I call dismantling the installation.

I will add when you carry out a test and inspection you are assessing the installation and the safety of it, this cannot be done if you do not do the full scope of tests for the reasons given, if you test a shower and the earth is not connected yet your ELI give a pass through a parallel path then you have not identified a very dangerous situation, that is the whole point of the testing and inspection, how can you justify omitting dead tests when you may miss a very real danger, in the scope of this thread which is domestic based then I cannot ever see a real reason to shun dead testing, I have not yet come across a situation where power cannot be removed to do so, commercial and industrial is a different ball park but still it should always be done unless their are exceptional circumstances where power cannot be removed, IE Hospitals IC wards etc...

 

[Risteard]

I find it strange that you consider dropping a wire out of a terminal as unnecessarily dismantling the installation

That's precisely what it relates to.

Also (R1+R2) testing will not prevent parallel paths from giving you a reading, e.g. in the case of supplementary bonding.

 

[richy3333]

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.)

Sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. Your 'quote' comes after that which I stated and is merely a note as part of table 3.4. Table 3.4 states under Ring circuit continuity 'Where there are records of previous test, this test may not be necessary unless there may have been changes made to the ring final circuit'. Why do the GN's then say this if continuity on final circuits is NOT required - as you argue?

I mean no disrespect to you but in my own opinion anyone walking around simply doing Zs testing on final circuits when continuity readings can be taken is only doing half a job unless that is what has been agreed with the customer and the customer fully understands what they are agreeing to with such limitations. The analogy I see is that my garage doesn't just start my van engine and then slap an MOT pass on the vehicle?

 

[richy3333]

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

Thanks for the explanation. Karma restored with a 'like'

 

[Risteard]

Sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. Your 'quote' comes after that which I stated and is merely a note as part of table 3.4. Table 3.4 states under Ring circuit continuity 'Where there are records of previous test, this test may not be necessary unless there may have been changes made to the ring final circuit'. Why do the GN's then say this if continuity on final circuits is NOT required - as you argue?

I mean no disrespect to you but in my own opinion anyone walking around simply doing Zs testing on final circuits when continuity readings can be taken is only doing half a job unless that is what has been agreed with the customer and the customer fully understands what they are agreeing to with such limitations. The analogy I see is that my garage doesn't just start my van engine and then slap an MOT pass on the vehicle?

I never once mentioned ring final circuit continuity testing. That's not what was being discussed.

However, as you allude to, the Guidance states that where records exist and changes have not been made then it can be omitted.

Personally I would prefer to do end-to-end continuity for ring final circuits to have some indication of continuity - but this would almost always be at a socket outlet rather than ripping a DB apart. I wouldn't be doing the whole figure-of-eight thing without good reason (e.g. if there was particular reason to doubt the ring). If I was going to go to those lengths I would also be looking for additional remuneration.

It really ought to be remembered that we are not "testing" - we are carrying out inspection and testing. Inspection is listed first as it is the most important element of this. The testing is merely to supplement the inspection.

Many things can pass tests which can be seen to be unacceptable and/or unsafe by inspection.

 

[Darkwood]

That's precisely what it relates to.

Also (R1+R2) testing will not prevent parallel paths from giving you a reading, e.g. in the case of supplementary bonding.

Please cite where it even suggests disconnecting a wire in a dist' board is classed as 'unnecessarily' dismantling the installation, I honestly find this bizarre,it is necessary to do to do the tests, we are taught this method, even if you take a modern testing course now you do all the tests in the usual order, when you did you AM2 test and inspection module would you have failed if you did not do the dead tests as part of the testing routine, I dare say yes, telling the examiner the live test will suffice would be an interesting concept to see what response you got.

In answer to your other point, I take the wire out of the board for dead tests, I will also in the example of a shower, drop the wire out of the shower, this proves the integrity of the cable and the earth wire itself with no parallel paths, I will agree somewhat that commercial and industrial may have circumstances where parallel paths cannot be omitted for testing in all cases but we are on about domestic.

I am open to other views here and will stand corrected if things have changed and I missed that bus but how can one test the actual circuit earthing if you cannot eliminate false positives from energised testing, you simply cannot so you could potentially mark a circuit as safe when it is a dangerous to use, even if your definition of unnecessarily dismantling of the installation was correct, can you not as a professional electrician see the clear danger in this approach that circuits could be unsafe and passed as safe?

 

[Risteard]

Please cite where it even suggests disconnecting a wire in a dist' board is classed as 'unnecessarily' dismantling the installation, I honestly find this bizarre,it is necessary to do to do the tests, we are taught this method, even if you take a modern testing course now you do all the tests in the usual order, when you did you AM2 test and inspection module would you have failed if you did not do the dead tests as part of the testing routine, I dare say yes, telling the examiner the live test will suffice would be an interesting concept to see what response you got.

In answer to your other point, I take the wire out of the board for dead tests, I will also in the example of a shower, drop the wire out of the shower, this proves the integrity of the cable and the earth wire itself with no parallel paths, I will agree somewhat that commercial and industrial may have circumstances where parallel paths cannot be omitted for testing in all cases but we are on about domestic.

I am open to other views here and will stand corrected if things have changed and I missed that bus but how can one test the actual circuit earthing if you cannot eliminate false positives from energised testing, you simply cannot so you could potentially mark a circuit as safe when it is a dangerous to use, even if your definition of unnecessarily dismantling of the installation was correct, can you not as a professional electrician see the clear danger in this approach that circuits could be unsafe and passed as safe?

An exam situation is not relevant as they are trying to determine that you know how to conduct all of these tests. That does not mean that they are sensible or advisable when carrying out periodic inspection and testing. This is exactly the over-reliance on testing that I am referring to. An inspection of all the senses is the key part, supplemented by relevant tests as appropriate.

Initial verification and periodic inspection are very, very different beasts. We are not trying to determine whether an installation is safe and compliant to energise as the installation is already energised. What we are concerned with is whether the installation is satisfactory to remain in service.

Totally different thing. Frankly if anyone told me that they did (R1+R2) testing during periodic inspections, my immediate thought would be that they have very little experience of periodic inspection and testing.

 

[buzzlightyear]

the only way of do dead testing ,is when their is no supply to energised too...but the inspector knowing that the supply to that consumer unit was live .I would love to see the test values .

 

[Darkwood]

An exam situation is not relevant as they are trying to determine that you know how to conduct all of these tests.

You make a relevant point that I cannot argue with.

Initial verification and periodic inspection are very, very different beasts. We are not trying to determine whether an installation is safe and compliant to energise as the installation is already energised.

I agree.

What we are concerned with is whether the installation is satisfactory to remain in service.

You still haven't addressed or replied to my main point, how can one determine whether an installation is satisfactory to remain in service when simply doing a energised test to establish a acceptable earth reading could be masking a dangerous circuit if not confirmed with a (R1+R2)
I will also add that doing the R1 +R2 on a socket ring and checking readings at each socket can establish where multiple spurs exist on one spur leg that in itself could be a fire risk, this cannot be determined by energised testing.

Frankly if anyone told me that they did (R1+R2) testing during periodic inspections, my immediate thought would be that they have very little experience of periodic inspection and testing.

I see this at the moment as opinion only, you haven't cited anything to back your position up, also you suggest anyone doing so you make you think they were of little experience, maybe they have been taught differently or are with companies with very different views or methods, I am no longer in a scheme myself as I don't do that kind of work enough anymore, I do however get in a well established local testing company sometimes for the factories that I am on call to to do there Periodic's, they do the dead tests as part of their routine, are you saying they are wrong and inexperienced?

 

[Risteard]

What they need to ask themselves is whether they are conducting a test simply because there is a box in which to record a result, or whether they are conducting it for some useful purpose.

In relation to your other point I actually answered it already. I pointed out that (R1+R2) testing is no less at risk of parallel paths than Zs testing.

 

[Darkwood]

What they need to ask themselves is whether they are conducting a test simply because there is a box in which to record a result, or whether they are conducting it for some useful purpose.

In relation to your other point I actually answered it already. I pointed out that (R1+R2) testing is no less at risk of parallel paths than Zs testing.

Like I also stated as regards to this point, that is easily resolved by disconnecting the earth at both ends and testing the cable, this is not too difficult in the majority of domestic installations to do this with all circuits, this ensures no parallel paths.
Also the box ticking comment, I have given you 2 examples for the need to R1 + R2 a circuit that could be masked by an ELI result giving a false positive, this is how I was taught and the reasons given are the reasons I was taught to always do them where possible.

I therefore don't agree it is a box ticking exercise but a justified test, again I understand there are limitations expecting in commercial and industrial here that I don't disagree about but as is the theme of the thread, 'domestic' warrants a full testing routine imho, I have never heard of or met anyone that thinks otherwise over my career and I have met many contractors well until this conversation.

I still ask in your professional opinion given I have shown you 2 key areas that can be missed in your suggested approach that can leave a dangerous installation marked as safe then do you still stand by your position that it is an optional test, I also would wonder how if someone was subsequently injured or killed with a circuit you had classed as safe yet was shown to be dangerous and would have been picked up had you done the full scope of tests, where do you think you would legally stand. I grant a periodics cannot find everything and this is easily defended in court but actually omitting half the testing may be a little harder to defend imho.

 

[Strima]

I find dead testing invaluable, especially when testing ring finals.

 

[Risteard]

Like I also stated as regards to this point, that is easily resolved by disconnecting the earth at both ends and testing the cable

Unnecessary dismantling.

"The purpose of periodic inspection and testing is to provide an engineering view on whether or not the installation is in a satisfactory condition where it can continue to be used in a safe way.

"The periodic inspection and test comprises a detailed examination of the installation together with the appropriate tests. The inspection is carried out without taking apart of dismantling equipment as far as is possible. The tests made are mainly to confirm that the disconnection times stated in Chapter 41 are met, as well as highlighting other defects."

"The tests considered appropriate by the person carrying out the inspection should be carried out in accordance with the recommendations in Table 3.4 and considering sections 3.8.1 to 3.8.4 of this Guidance Note.

"See section 2.6 of this Guidance Note, noting that alternative methods may be used provided they give reliable results." (GN3)

 

[Risteard]

Also "Notes:

"4: The earth fault loop impedance test may be used to confirm the continuity of protective conductors at socket-outlets and at accessible exposed-conductive-parts of current-using equipment and accessories."

 

[Darkwood]

Also "Notes:

"4: The earth fault loop impedance test may be used to confirm the continuity of protective conductors at socket-outlets and at accessible exposed-conductive-parts of current-using equipment and accessories."

I will stand corrected then -

Well if this is what the guidance is advising then it certainly has changed since I did my college back in the eighties, I would still do R1+R2 personally, it shows you potentially dangerous issues that ELI would miss so I still don't agree with the paragraph above, it is noted as number 4: so I may have to look at the surrounding notes to see what context it is presented in, I will also raise a query with the BSI on this matter and see what their input is.
I am still interested in your professional opinion given the scenario I gave can lead to a dangerous situation getting a pass, guidance notes are just that for guidance and I presented you a reason for r1+r2 which I believes justifies it should be undertaken and also made the case that in domestic you can easily and with limited effort do a R1+R2 with parallel paths omitted.

 

[richy3333]

I will stand corrected then -

Well if this is what the guidance is advising then it certainly has changed since I did my college back in the eighties, I would still do R1+R2 personally, it shows you potentially dangerous issues that ELI would miss so I still don't agree with the paragraph above, it is noted as number 4: so I may have to look at the surrounding notes to see what context it is presented in, I will also raise a query with the BSI on this matter and see what their input is.
I am still interested in your professional opinion given the scenario I gave can lead to a dangerous situation getting a pass, guidance notes are just that for guidance and I presented you a reason for r1+r2 which I believes justifies it should be undertaken and also made the case that in domestic you can easily and with limited effort do a R1+R2 with parallel paths omitted.

Hi darkwood.
I feel Risteard is just quoting sections out context from GN3 to offer validity and /or substantiate his own view/position on I&T with EICR's. You won't change his view, he is entrenched.

I'd be interested in what his CPS thinks to his opinions, if he is with a scheme.

I'd stop debating with him. He's wont capitulate. I feel he isn't open to a change of viewpoint.

Me; I'm going to start running around domestic installs just measuring Zs values, beats doing it properly

 

[Darkwood]

I was just showing respect, I made my case, showed my position and explained why I hold that train of thought, I showed respect for his views and politely asked in my last post what he thought in his professional stance about sidestepping what I consider important steps in a testing routine because they can reveal dangerous issues that may not be detected by a ELI ... I have yet to receive his answer on that specific question, personally I can't see how one can justify routinely omitting R1+R2 tests given they give valuable info and show dangers up that an ELI cannot.

 

[Deleted account]

I feel if its initial verification then yes dead tests are essensial, but I don't believe all dead tests are essential in a circuit that has already been energised.
Yes it is good practice, but I have to agree with restart on this one. i was taught in my 2395 ( test and inspect) that earth continuity can be proven by R1 +R2 or wander lead, or just the Zs. It's the inspectors choice.

As for insulation resistance test. I agree it's pretty essensial in an EICR, but as I have stated earlier if I come across a board in such a state as I would have to spend extra time putting it right before continuing, I would not do insulation resistance and mark it as a FI. An inspector is there to inspect, not rectify.

I know we are not discussing minor works hear, but I also quite often dismiss the dead testing on minor works if it's just a light pendant or socket being swapped like for like, however I always do the Zs, RCD 5times rated, and check polarity.

 

[Risteard]

Hi darkwood.
I feel Risteard is just quoting sections out context from GN3

How exactly is that out of context?

 

[Risteard]

I was just showing respect, I made my case, showed my position and explained why I hold that train of thought, I showed respect for his views and politely asked in my last post what he thought in his professional stance about sidestepping what I consider important steps in a testing routine because they can reveal dangerous issues that may not be detected by a ELI ... I have yet to receive his answer on that specific question, personally I can't see how one can justify routinely omitting R1+R2 tests given they give valuable info and show dangers up that an ELI cannot.

It won't show up different to what a Zs test will. Answered this several times already. You are just trying to justify your view so have convinced yourself of the merit. Dead continuity testing is to ensure that an installation is safe to energise. If the installation is already energised then the point is moot. Disconnecting a cpc at both ends is most certainly unnecessary dismantling and can result in it not being reassembled correctly. It's also not how an R1+R2 test is intended to be done. The correct method will not remove parallel paths.