EICR rectifications completed by another electrician, what now?

[alex kane]

Hello all.

I have recently passed my 2395, allowing me to carry out EICRs and have just thought of a possible scenario for which I'm not sure how I'd handle.

I do a lot of work for a letting agency and I know that when they get periodic reports carried out on their properties, if there are any rectifications required then another electrician/ company will put them right. This is to stop people from coming up with ridiculous 'faults' on their report, hoping it will drum up more work for them.

The scenario I am unsure of is if I deem an installation unsatisfactory and somebody else carries out the rectifications, what is the best way to then deem the installation satisfactory? Obviously I can't just just give them a new certificate stating 'satisfactory' without seeing whether the rectifications were carried out.

Would the letting agency/ customer need an invoice or a test certificate stating the other electrician had carried out the rectifications? Would they be able to attach this to my original EICR and that would be as good as having 'satisfactory' on it?

Thanks in advance!

 

[westward10]

If someone else carries out the remedial works it is for them to confirm whether the installation is now satisfactory, the ball is no longer in your court. If they want another Report to give a satisfactory outcome they will have to pay you to carry out another EICR.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Ok, to start off, the 2395 does not allow you to carry out EICRs.
By rights appropriate certification appended to your report should be sufficient.
If however a ‘Satisfactry’ report is required, then you will have to conduct another inspection and issue another EICR.

 

[Pete999]

Hello all.

I have recently passed my 2395, allowing me to carry out EICRs and have just thought of a possible scenario for which I'm not sure how I'd handle.

I do a lot of work for a letting agency and I know that when they get periodic reports carried out on their properties, if there are any rectifications required then another electrician/ company will put them right. This is to stop people from coming up with ridiculous 'faults' on their report, hoping it will drum up more work for them.

The scenario I am unsure of is if I deem an installation unsatisfactory and somebody else carries out the rectifications, what is the best way to then deem the installation satisfactory? Obviously I can't just just give them a new certificate stating 'satisfactory' without seeing whether the rectifications were carried out.

Would the letting agency/ customer need an invoice or a test certificate stating the other electrician had carried out the rectifications? Would they be able to attach this to my original EICR and that would be as good as having 'satisfactory' on it?

Thanks in advance!

alex, if you have carried out an EICR, issued the certificate, got paid then your part of the job is done, if the client wishes to go to another source to get the faults ( if any fixed ) then that's their prerogative, your part in the procedure is over, unless of course the firm doing the repairs, accuses you of falsifying the EICR for your own benefit.

 

[westward10]

It is not a Certificate, it is a Report.

 

[Octopus]

If someone else carries out the remedial works it is for them to confirm whether the installation is now satisfactory, the ball is no longer in your court. If they want another Report to give a satisfactory outcome they will have to pay you to carry out another EICR.

Short and to the point.

A great answer ...

 

[westward10]

unless of course the firm doing the repairs, accuses you of falsifying the EICR for your own benefit.[/QUOTE]
Pete, you are always thinking people are up to no good when most of the time people are honest.

 

[telectrix]

unless of course the firm doing the repairs, accuses you of falsifying the EICR for your own benefit.

Pete, you are always thinking people are up to no good when most of the time people are honest.[/QUOTE]
like Robert Maxwell???

 

[Dillb]

Pete, you are always thinking people are up to no good when most of the time people are honest.

There are arguments for both. sides of this argument, I have carried out remedials for shops where the EICR has been carried out by others and some of the codings I have seen are ridiculous witg also some blatant defects not recorded.

 

[Nigel]

If the remedials works have been carried out in good time and certified then the EICR then becomes a ‘satisfactory’ report.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If the remedials works have been carried out in good time and certified then the EICR then becomes a ‘satisfactory’ report.

Not sure exactly what this means?
An unsatisfactory report would still state unsatisfactory after remedial work had been conducted.
If certification detailing rectification of all the observations that made the report unsatisfactory was appended to the report, then yes the report should then be considered as satisfied.
The report should still state unsatisfactory.

 

[Nigel]

A report is stated as unsatisfactory at the time the report was carried out but signed of for x years so long as all C1s and C2s are repaired in good time.

If anyone is doing a second EICR following remedial works they are over egging the pudding completely by carrying out completely unnecessary works.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

A report is stated as unsatisfactory at the time the report was carried out but signed of for x years so long as all C1s and C2s are repaired in good time.

If anyone is doing a second EICR following remedial works they are over egging the pudding completely by carrying out completely unnecessary works.

I don’t know what you mean by being signed off for x amount of years?
If it’s unsatisfactory, there’s no x number of years.

If I conduct an EICR, that’s it all done.
Someone wants another EICR, they pay for it.
I’m not about to amend my report, just because someone says they’ve rectified the faults I’ve found.

 

[shaun1]

Not sure what the official line is here but as others have said the EICR is just a report detailing the condition of the instalation. If a different company comes in to carry out remedial work then perhaps they could issue a cover letter with the certs, confirming that all defecfs noted in the report have been rectified.

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

Ok, to start off, the 2395 does not allow you to carry out EICRs.

Why not?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Why not?

You don’t need any qualifications to carry out EICRs.

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

You don’t need any qualifications to carry out EICRs.

Ahh - right. I think I mis-understood your comment to mean that you need some other qualification.

Presumably, then, the person carrying out the EICR must be ‘competent’- one way or another.

I’ve done the 2395 - nothing wrong with it in the sense it offers some training, and its better than nothing. I don’t believe that everyone who has got it is necessarily competent to carry out EICR’s straight away......

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The 2391 was introduced at the behest of the NICEIC, as a qualification to be a Qualified Supervisor.
So many of their existing Qualified Supervisors failed the exam, that the NICEIC dropped it as a requirement.
It then became a qualification for practicing Inspectors to aim for as proof of their competence.
The JIB adopted it as a requirement for the ‘Approved’ grade around about 2005. I believe it was required for renewals as well as new applicants for the grade?
Latterly it has become seen as a qualification to allow someone to become an Inspector.
The 2391 was withdrawn and replaced with the 2394 and 2395 in 2012 by the City & Guilds, as rather late response to the introduction of Part P.
The idea being that ‘Part P’ Domestic Installers would only require the Initial Verification part.
The new 2391 has 3 parts, Initial Verification, Periodic Inspection and combined Initial Verification and Periodic Inspection.
In effect the 2394 has become the 2391-50, the 2395 has become the 2391-51 and the 2391 has become the 2391-52.
This change is supposedly to remove any confusion that occurred when the 2394 and 2395 were introduced.

 

[Nigel]

I don’t know what you mean by being signed off for x amount of years?
If it’s unsatisfactory, there’s no x number of years.

If I conduct an EICR, that’s it all done.
Someone wants another EICR, they pay for it.
I’m not about to amend my report, just because someone says they’ve rectified the faults I’ve found.

I don’t know what kind of reports you issue but the ones we issue clearly state a next inspection due date that is dependant on all C1 and C2 remedials being repaired urgently.

An unsatisfactory EICR is still signed off generally for 5/10 years. Subject to remedial works being completed.

 

[TJ Anderson]

Not sure what the official line is here but as others have said the EICR is just a report detailing the condition of the installation. If a different company comes in to carry out remedial work then perhaps they could issue a cover letter with the certs, confirming that all defects noted in the report have been rectified.

I think this is a good way and have done it this way myself. The EICR is just a report of an installation as it was at the time of inspection.
Whoever then carried out the remedial work, be it the original inspector of the EICR or someone else, they would then issue an EIC or MWC as appropriate to cover the remedial works and cross reference it back to the EICR individual C1 and C2 observations that have now been rectified. The report and cert would then be kept together and it would be clear to anyone in the future that there were findings in the report that were rectified and certified after. Easy

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I don’t know what kind of reports you issue but the ones we issue clearly state a next inspection due date that is dependant on all C1 and C2 remedials being repaired urgently.

An unsatisfactory EICR is still signed off generally for 5/10 years. Subject to remedial works being completed.

So do your reports that list code C1 and code C2 observations, say Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory?

 

[Nigel]

So do your reports that list code C1 and code C2 observations, say Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory?

Unsatisfactory.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

So how does it become Satisfactory?
Does the client erase ‘Un”?
Do you issue a new report?
Is it by magic?

 

[Nigel]

So how does it become Satisfactory?
Does the client erase ‘Un”?
Do you issue a new report?
Is it by magic?

It is really very very simple. The installation becomes satisfactory following an unsatisfactory report issued on the day of the inspection and a paper trail evidencing that the remedials have been carried out in good time.

You are either trolling (which is not even good trolling) or you are desperatly trying to justify your business model of carrying out unnecessary EICRs.

 

[davesparks]

Why not?

Because you can carry out an EICR without doing it, and it doesn’t prove that you have the required level of experience and competence.

 

[Marcus Vaughan]

Because you can carry out an EICR without doing it, and it doesn’t prove that you have the required level of experience and competence.

Fair enough. Agreed. I get it. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It is really very very simple. The installation becomes satisfactory following an unsatisfactory report issued on the day of the inspection and a paper trail evidencing that the remedials have been carried out in good time.

You are either trolling (which is not even good trolling) or you are desperatly trying to justify your business model of carrying out unnecessary EICRs.

What I’m trying to do, is work out what it is you are saying.
Because you’re about as clear as mud.

Now I have already posted that where an EICR is Unsatisfactory, appending certificates for the remedial work required, should be all that is required.
Now if you wish to disagree with that, or you consider it to be trolling, then please explain why.

However appending certification does not magically make the EICR Satisfactory. The EICR is still Unsatisfactory.

My business model is such, that if a client now requires me to alter the EICR from Unsatisfactory, to Satisfactory, I will refuse.
I would be willing to re-inspect the Installation and issue a new EICR, which may or may not be Satisfactory.

From personal experience, I have seen remedial work carried out which resulted in the upstairs and downstairs RFCs being terminated into each other’s MCBs.
Now some may consider incorrect labelling as a code C3.
However as the Consumer Unit is intended to be used by ordinary persons (i.e. non-competent, non-trained, non-skilled, etc.) I consider a code C2 to be applicable.
In any event whichever code applies, it will not have been recorded on the unsatisfactory EICR.

If you find it reprehensible that I am not prepared to state an installation will be Satisfactory for x amount of years, if the listed C1 and C2 observations are rectified by others, without first inspecting the work, you are nuts.

I also think, that you’re nuts for being willing to effectively guarantee other’s work for x amount of years, without first inspecting that work.

Of course, if you are not saying such, then explain just what it is you are saying.
Try to be clear and effective in your explanation.

 

[Nigel]

What I’m trying to do, is work out what it is you are saying.
Because you’re about as clear as mud.

Now I have already posted that where an EICR is Unsatisfactory, appending certificates for the remedial work required, should be all that is required.
Now if you wish to disagree with that, or you consider it to be trolling, then please explain why.

However appending certification does not magically make the EICR Satisfactory. The EICR is still Unsatisfactory.

My business model is such, that if a client now requires me to alter the EICR from Unsatisfactory, to Satisfactory, I will refuse.
I would be willing to re-inspect the Installation and issue a new EICR, which may or may not be Satisfactory.

From personal experience, I have seen remedial work carried out which resulted in the upstairs and downstairs RFCs being terminated into each other’s MCBs.
Now some may consider incorrect labelling as a code C3.
However as the Consumer Unit is intended to be used by ordinary persons (i.e. non-competent, non-trained, non-skilled, etc.) I consider a code C2 to be applicable.
In any event whichever code applies, it will not have been recorded on the unsatisfactory EICR.

If you find it reprehensible that I am not prepared to state an installation will be Satisfactory for x amount of years, if the listed C1 and C2 observations are rectified by others, without first inspecting the work, you are nuts.

I also think, that you’re nuts for being willing to effectively guarantee other’s work for x amount of years, without first inspecting that work.

Of course, if you are not saying such, then explain just what it is you are saying.
Try to be clear and effective in your explanation.

What I am saying is very clear.

You issue an undatisfactory EICR and recommend a date of next inspection. That date must assume all works that are required to be done, are done. This is written in black and white and is not open to interpretation.

When giving an unsatisfatory EICR for say the incorrect OCPD installed how long would you put for the next inspection due? Giving what you have said above it would appear that you would not put any date in as you would not sign it off unless you have seen the remedial works??

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What I am saying is very clear.

You issue an undatisfactory EICR and recommend a date of next inspection. That date must assume all works that are required to be done, are done. This is written in black amd white and is not open to interpretation.

When given an unsatisfatory EICR for say the incorrect OCPD installed how long would you put for the next inspection due? Goving what you have said above it would appear that you would not put any date in as you would not sign it off unless you have seen the remedial works??

No, I do not issue am Unsatisfactory report and then specify a date for the next inspection.
Just the same as if a vehicle fails an MOT, there is no date specified for the next MOT inspection.
If I were to specify when the next inspection should be, it would be when the observations have been rectified.

See here again unclear.
What do you mean by incorrect OCPD, what is the observation, what code has been applied?
You need to specify.
Is the rating incorrect, the type incorrect, does it affect the overall type testing of the CU, is the breaking capacity too low for the measured PFC, is there no discrimination with upstream or downstream devices?

I think I would really hate to see one of your reports.
Judging by how you explain yourself on the forum, I bet any of your reports would be just full of generalities.
Things like: “No RCD in Fuse Box, code C2”.

 

[Octopus]

If I provide an unsatisfactory EICR, I also send the invoice .....

The date for the reinspection is defined by me

Whether the person acts on my report isn’t my problem ......

 

[Risteard]

I have to agree with @essex - it is clearly stated within an EICR if you bother to read it that the date of next inspection is subject to dangerous and potentially dangerous defects being remedied, and further investigation being carried out where required. There is no need to reissue another EICR with the word "Satisfactory". Certified remedial works for the "Unsatisfactory" EICR make it now satisfactory. The original EICR is not amended to read "Satisfactory" - there is no need for it to. The certification proves that relevant issues have been corrected.

 

[Nigel]

No, I do not issue am Unsatisfactory report and then specify a date for the next inspection.
Just the same as if a vehicle fails an MOT, there is no date specified for the next MOT inspection.
If I were to specify when the next inspection should be, it would be when the observations have been rectified.

See here again unclear.
What do you mean by incorrect OCPD, what is the observation, what code has been applied?
You need to specify.
Is the rating incorrect, the type incorrect, does it affect the overall type testing of the CU, is the breaking capacity too low for the measured PFC, is there no discrimination with upstream or downstream devices?

I think I would really hate to see one of your reports.
Judging by how you explain yourself on the forum, I bet any of your reports would be just full of generalities.
Things like: “No RCD in Fuse Box, code C2”.

See now you are turning it personal. A standard response to someone that feels theeatened.

You have answered my question. You do not carry out EICRs to BS7671. At least you are honest about this.

 

[Nigel]

I have to agree with @essex - it is clearly stated within an EICR if you bother to read it that the date of next inspection is subject to dangerous and potentially dangerous defects being remedied, and further investigation being carried out where required. There is no need to reissue another EICR with the word "Satisfactory". Certified remedial works for the "Unsatisfactory" EICR make it now satisfactory. The original EICR is not amended to read "Satisfactory" - there is no need for it to. The certification proves that relevant issues have been corrected.

Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I have to agree with @essex - it is clearly stated within an EICR if you bother to read it that the date of next inspection is subject to dangerous and potentially dangerous defects being remedied, and further investigation being carried out where required. There is no need to reissue another EICR with the word "Satisfactory". Certified remedial works for the "Unsatisfactory" EICR make it now satisfactory. The original EICR is not amended to read "Satisfactory" - there is no need for it to. The certification proves that relevant issues have been corrected.

Read my first post in this thread (post #3).

 

[Nigel]

Read my first post in this thread (post #3).

It is a completly false statement.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

See now you are turning it personal. A standard response to someone that feels theeatened.

You have answered my question. You do not carry out EICRs to BS7671. At least you are honest about this.

Oh you accusing me of being a troll, is not personal?
You still haven’t explained anything.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It is a completly false statement.

Considering the second paragraph says what you have been saying, does that mean what you have been saying is also completely false?

 

[Nigel]

Oh you accusing me of being a troll, is not personal?
You still haven’t explained anything.

I never said you were a troll. I said you were trolling. Subtle difference.

 

[Nigel]

Considering the second paragraph says what you have been saying, does that mean what you have been saying is also completely false?

Oh my God, are you serious?

It says the complete opposite.

This is now hilarious.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The word ‘trolling’ is the present participle of the word ‘troll’.
By stating that I am trolling, you are stating that I am at present actively being a troll.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Oh my God, are you serious?

It says the complete opposite.

This is now hilarious.

How does “By rights appropriate certification appended to your report should be sufficient.” differ from what you have been saying?
You still haven’t explained.

 

[Nigel]

The word ‘trolling’ is the present participle of the word ‘troll’.
By stating that I am trolling, you are stating that I am at present actively being a troll.

Ok. Nice side step from the issue. Painting my living room does not make me a painter.

Do you accept that you are incorrect in your understanding of the EICR sign off procedure.

 

[Nigel]

How does “By rights appropriate certification appended to your report should be sufficient.” differ from what you have been saying?
You still haven’t explained.

Your Post 3 contradicts itself and shows a misunderstanding of how EICRs should be signed off. You have further clarifies your misunderstanding by confirming that you do not give a next inspection due date on unsatisfactory EICRs.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Ok. Nice side step from the issue. Painting my living room does not make me a painter.

Do you accept that you are incorrect in your understanding of the EICR sign off procedure.

Actually, it does.
It doesn’t make you a professional painter, but a painter is someone who paints.

No.
BS7671 allows me as the Inspector to determine when an installation should next be inspected.
If I do not consider an Installation is safe for continued use, then I am not obliged to state the installation should continue to be used and inspected in x amount of years.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Your Post 3 contradicts itself and shows a misunderstanding of how EICRs should be signed off. You have further clarifies your misunderstanding by confirming that you do not give a next inspection due date on unsatisfactory EICRs.

Please explain how it contradicts itself?

 

[Nigel]

Actually, it does.
It doesn’t make you a professional painter, but a painter is someone who paints.

No.
BS7671 allows me as the Inspector to determine when an installation should next be inspected.
If I do not consider an Installation is safe for continued use, then I am not obliged to state the installation should continue to be used and inspected in x amount of years.

This is what I mean by your misunderstanding of how the sign off procedure works. You have summed it up perfectly above.

It has been explained many times how it works and I have nothing more to add on it. Happy to help but you seem to be digging your heels in a little for some reason even though you are incorrect.

 

[Nigel]

Please explain how it contradicts itself?

You start by saying additional certification ‘should’ surfice then go on to say that if they want a satisfactory EICR then you will need to test again.

Come on. Jesus.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You start by saying additional certification ‘should’ surfice then go on to say that if they want a satisfactory EICR then you will need to test again.

Come on. Jesus.

If the client wants the report to state Satisfactory rather than Unsatisfactory, then the installation would have to be inspected again.

 

[Nigel]

If the client wants the report to state Satisfactory rather than Unsatisfactory, then the installation would have to be inspected again.

No the client would need to be educated.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No the client would need to be educated.

The problem with that, is that some Insurance companies will not accept Unsatisfactory reports even with appropriate certification for remedial work appended to the report.
Some insist the report must state Satisfactory.
Which is why I stated first:
“By rights appropriate certification appended to your report should be sufficient.”