Why do I worry?

[Deleted member 9648]

EICR's increasingly bother me and have resulted in the odd sleepless night. Simply because in testing and inspecting a complex installation that is unknown to you it is not possible to check everything and the one thing you miss might be the very thing that caused fire or electrocution. Not only do I not want that on my conscience ,I also don't want m'lud waving the 'satisfactory' report with my sig on it in my face before sending me down simply because I missed something.

Today I was installing a couple of emergency lights under a mezzanine floor in a factory. All the existing lights were fed from a 4 way steel wylex DB, immediately below the DB was 2ft of 2x2 steel with a 9 gang M/C grid switch at the bottom. Trunking not bolted to either the DB or the switch box....and NO cpc from the DB to either the trunking or the switch. Continuity tested from DB out of interest, as I suspected.....zilch.
6" to the left of the DB was an NICEIC approved contractor test sticker dated Nov 2015

You couldn't make it up.

(But clearly they did)

 

[Darkwood]

You need to write a short piece on the report explaining that your inspection and testing only gives a general overview of the installation and may not expose issues that are inaccessable, hidden and/or not picked up by your test equipment. This covers your harris to some extent, just point it out to them prior to any inspection with an example of say a hidden dangerous joint under the floor may not show up on testing and is unlikely to be found and inspected during your visit.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

There is a note on the NIC forms about inaccessible parts of the installation etc. Although I'd agree that a further 'disclaimer' note on an EICR might be a good idea and I may well do that in future. However I very much doubt that in the event of the worst happening that would stand up in a court.
I'm seriously thinking of packing in EICR's. I think if the muppets who 'carried out' the EICR in November on that DB I saw today thought about the possible consequences of their very blatant negligence they might well have a light bulb moment. There is absolutely no possibility of an excuse if that one had resulted in an electrocution.

 

[Andy78]

Much of the scope of liability should be dealt with in the "extent and limitations" section. Agreement beforehand with the customer coupled with your expert advice as to the scope of the test after an initial "walkabout" survey should ease your sleep patterns.

You never know, your AC NICEIC guys could have been testing on an agreed 30% basis.

 

[Darkwood]

As above, you are not liable for the installations safety, you are only producing a report that gives a general overview, as Andy78 says many inspections on larger installs can be done on a sample basis as low as 30% and this is usually to satisfy insurers that the building is getting regular checks and is not falling into disrepair before they cover the insurance.
No judge is going to make you liable for anything unless you were obviously negligent while doing your T&I like leaving the distribution board cover off leading to someones death this would be a direct result of your in-action to ensure the customers safety whilst you were on site or similar if you forgot and left site without fitting the cover back on.

I think your over thinking your liabilities when doing a T&I.

 

[Richard Burns]

I think that based on the majority of reports I see from others you should have no worries at all in having things on your conscience or worrying that someone may find you liable as it is obvious that no one takes a blind bit of notice of reports, unfortunately this also seems to include inspectors.

One industrial report had about 200 observations of conductors undersized for circuit breakers, when it was obvious these were fixed loads, a domestic one went on and on about aluminium wire being used dangerously in the property and yet the conductors were 1,1.5 and 2.5 mm², hmm tinned copper I think.

Whilst I worry that I may miss things I am also confident that the fact that I am not inspecting 100% of the installation means I cannot be liable for something I have not seen or worked on.
Any inspection of an unknown installation must present a possibility of overlooking something and this should be clear in any legal repercussions notwithstanding the limitations identified for the report.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

As above, you are not liable for the installations safety, you are only producing a report that gives a general overview, as Andy78 says many inspections on larger installs can be done on a sample basis as low as 30% and this is usually to satisfy insurers that the building is getting regular checks and is not falling into disrepair before they cover the insurance.
No judge is going to make you liable for anything unless you were obviously negligent while doing your T&I like leaving the distribution board cover off leading to someones death this would be a direct result of your in-action to ensure the customers safety whilst you were on site or similar if you forgot and left site without fitting the cover back on.

I think your over thinking your liabilities when doing a T&I.

Might just be having a wobble at the moment. I confess to making a couple of mistakes recently which could have had serious consequences but fortunately didn't. There is more and more to think about and sometimes it seems the whole system is just set up to catch you out. Nearly 40 years a sparks and I've never felt like this about it before.

 

[Darkwood]

Might just be having a wobble at the moment. I confess to making a couple of mistakes recently which could have had serious consequences but fortunately didn't. There is more and more to think about and sometimes it seems the whole system is just set up to catch you out. Nearly 40 years a sparks and I've never felt like this about it before.

We have all done the same I dare say and made us think what could have happened and gone wrong, its called getting over confident and complacent but now you have had a few wobbles as you say with no harm done then you will now be sharper and more alert so you need to carry on and keep the trade going

 

[GMES]

I think like a few have said , don't let it get on top of you we do a lot of Ind/Commercial testing and it yes it could get in my head if I allowed it but I don't.
For me I keep it straight forward and simple I agree a percentage that will be tested whether 20/40/60% etc and then make sure I am thorough and methodical in how we test I then attach extra sheets with a list of how many sockets/lights/ isolators I have tested and where they are and state that xyz as not been tested, this way I sleep at night knowing I have done my best.
One Good point already made is like me a lot of guys only test in 30% stages so you can't worry about the 70% percent that you haven't touched otherwise you would go crazy with worry.
Always do the best you can , as safe as you can, work to the law and have all insurances etc in place and never cut corners and you should sleep sound at night.

 

[LankyWill]

Dont let it get to you, remember were only human and mistakes happen. Make sure you have Public Liability insurance and shrug away the niggles in your mind. As long as you can whole heartily say you have done your best and tested to your ability then you should be fine. Its only as good as the day you physically test it, dont fret later on because some other monkey could come along the next day on his horse and mess it up anyway. When i test commercial premises i feel a little out of depth but i just crack on and remember the basics. The word LIM helps!

 

[edrobbo8]

Another way to look at it is it's like an MOT for your van - that is a report which says that on that date the vehicle was roadworthy. The next day a fault could develop which wasn't picked up on the MOT and could cause an accident - the MOT was just a picture of that vehicle's state at a time and date that said it was roadworthy!

 

[7029 dave]

There is a note on the NIC forms about inaccessible parts of the installation etc. Although I'd agree that a further 'disclaimer' note on an EICR might be a good idea and I may well do that in future. However I very much doubt that in the event of the worst happening that would stand up in a court.
I'm seriously thinking of packing in EICR's. I think if the muppets who 'carried out' the EICR in November on that DB I saw today thought about the possible consequences of their very blatant negligence they might well have a light bulb moment. There is absolutely no possibility of an excuse if that one had resulted in an electrocution.

IMO they are not worth the paper they are written on.