remedial work after an EICR was carried out on a residential property

[leep82]

Today i have been carrying out some remedial work after an EICR was carried out on a residential property. Aswell as the list of remedial works to be carried out i also had draft copies of the EICR which was carried out in November of last year.

When i started to read through the list of observations, which were carried out by another engineer, there were a large number of C1 and C2 items. Now the way i understood it and please tell me if im wrong is that any C1 observations have to be made safe at the time of discovery even if just a temporary fix. The way i had it explained to me was that imagine a doctor walking past someone in the street who had collapsed. Point being they wouldnt as they still have a duty of care to that profession, just as i do as an electrician if i see somthing that is dangerous. Reason i ask is that obviously the initial EICR was done 4 months ago.

Im still very much gaining experience when it comes to EICR so it was interesting to read through some of the observations made. Another one which caught my eye was the lack of isolation points ( key switches ) for the emergency lighting, this was given a C2. As part of the remedial work this is somthing else we are attending to although i think the code may be a little harsh? Would a C3 have been more appropriate in this instant?

 

[hightower]

All good and well fixing C1s there and then, but let me paint a quick scenario. There's 8 hours worth of C1 remedials needed and the customer isn't going to pay for them. Are you gonna stay and do them for free? In other words - an EICR is exactly what it says it is: a report.

 

[SparkyChick]

My take on a C1 is, it should be reported to the person ordering the work immediately and should be recorded on the report.

Beyond that, what happens next is up to the person ordering the work.

 

[Octopus]

I think we need to understand what these C1 ' s were , as they may not have been C1' s

 

[leep82]

I understand both points, but lets say were talking about exposed live parts would you be happy to walk away having only noted it on the report? I appreciate that you couldnt start to put every C1 right as you find them but the moment you started to come across more and more would you not stop and inform whoever has ordered the work?

 

[Octopus]

^^ need more facts.....

 

[leep82]

I think we need to understand what these C1 ' s were , as they may not have been C1' s

Struggling to remember off the top of my head i think one was no bonding to incoming water service and another was a socket that was hanging off the wall, it just needed screwing back. There were a couple more but like i say struggling to remember.

 

[Octopus]

^^

Neither C1 's imho

 

[SparkyChick]

No bonding to incoming service is a C2, something else has to happen for that to be a danger.

As for the socket, I think as part of my inspection I would have had it fully off the wall just to check the connections and then replaced it properly and not even mentioned it. And yes, I know that goes against what I've said above. Now, if it couldn't be screwed back on because the threads were shot or something, I'd C1 that all day long.

If the home owner or tenant was there, I might make some enquiries about how it happened, but beyond that, just screw it back in place and move on.

 

[westward10]

Key switches for the emergency lighting are test facilities and not isolation. This should have warranted no Code.
Code 1 items should be given in writing to the responsible person.

 

[Risteard]

Key switches for the emergency lighting are test facilities and not isolation. This should have warranted no Code.

Agreed, and an EICR is to BS7671 and not BS5266 so it's difficult to see what Regulation they are claiming is breached unless you include the one about associated Standards, of which BS5266 is one.

 

[Risteard]

^^

Neither C1 's imho

How is a socket outlet hanging off the wall exposing live parts not a C1 observation?

 

[SparkyChick]

How is a socket outlet hanging off the wall exposing live parts not a C1 observation?

As I said, I'd probably whip it off, check everything is ok and screw it back in place properly. Then it's been made safe and doesn't warrant a code, but probably worthy of a comment on a continuation sheet. If I could not screw it back properly, then I'd grade accordingly and report.

 

[Pat H]

If it takes more time to write up and report I'd just fix. Otherwise I isolate the circuit and advise the person ordering the work. If they decide to re-energise that's their call.

 

[7029 dave]

IMO, the EICR is a report, you could have endless C1, C2, at the the end of the day you have done your job, remedial's is the next stage.

 

[Anthony_wayne]

A lot would depend on your client. When you find a C1 you should let the client know asap, backing that up in writing. If you have a good rapport you may be asked to fix it and bill them for it. If it's just an EICR with no scope to carry out remedial work then there's not much else you can do. You really don't even have the authority to lock it off, although you should try to leave it isolated. The onus is on them then to do what ever they deem is appropriate, you've done your part.

On a side note the codes they issued seem a little harsh, I'd hazard a guess they were looking for remedial work, probably after going in too cheap on the EICR.

 

[Risteard]

As I said, I'd probably whip it off, check everything is ok and screw it back in place properly. Then it's been made safe and doesn't warrant a code, but probably worthy of a comment on a continuation sheet. If I could not screw it back properly, then I'd grade accordingly and report.

I don't disagree - just pointing out that if a socket outlet is hanging off the wall and left hanging off the wall then a C1 observation is certainly appropriate. Why it wasn't possible to just screw the socket to the wall and note this I'm not sure. (Certainly it should still be noted even if repaired so the client is aware of the dangers which were present.)

 

[mattwoott]

Hi Guys, not been around here in a good while thought i would have a look today and saw this thread. Anyway in my humble opinion, looking at what should happen on EICR's the onus is very much on us as the 'competent person' to remove all immediate dangers before continuing surely?

Quoting from best practice guide directly:

Where, during the course of inspection or testing, an immediate danger is found to be present in an installation (from an accessible exposed live part, for example), immediate action will be necessary to make it safe before continuing. However, the discovery of the dangerous condition should still be recorded in the report and classified accordingly.

As persons using the installation are at risk, it is not sufficient simply to draw attention to the danger when submitting the electrical installation condition report.

With this in mind what would happen if someone was injured 10 mins after the report was issued and they sued you? How would you feel if a child was injured or killed?

I know it is the homeowners responsibility but we do have a duty of care even if they won't pay or don't really get it that its dangerous to do more than just note it down on report.

Personally i have had to put right a lot of things that where never quoted for nor paid for just to leave an installation safe.

 

[hightower]

With this in mind what would happen if someone was injured 10 mins after the report was issued and they sued you? How would you feel if a child was injured or killed?

Your post talks about fixing immediate dangers, ie C1. But with your quote above in mind, how would you feel if a child was injured or killed 10 mins after the report because of a C2 fault? So does that mean you should go around fixing C2s for nothing too?

Okay, if it was an easy fix (like British Gas who whack a load of plastic over exposed live parts) fair enough. But if it's not so easy a fix why should we be expected to do it for nothing? The onus is on the property owner. Report, fit a danger notice and isolate if necessary, and move on. Otherwise it wouldn't be called an EICR, it would be called an EICRAFFFA.

 

[westward10]

Put in writing to the responsible person, get them to sign it and move on. The BPG is just that a Guide whereas 7671 actually states such an instance should be put in writing however it would be personal integrity to at least to try and remove the problem but this isn't always possible.