Queries regarding Inspection Report I've just had completed

[Risteard]

You remove R1 and R2 at one end of the circuit and connect together (connector not a link from the earth bar to mcb), you then go to the other end and do the same but this time you put your meter across both R1 and R2, we were taught this method as it ensures you are only testing the circuit earth and not getting erroneous readings from what could be unreliable parallel paths, if it has changed and you were taught different then that be the case but throughout this thread I have expressed that doing it as you suggest can leave the circuit unsafe for the reasons expressed, I have on several occasions now said that if we forgot which is the method used now and taught can you not see the issues I raised and in your professional opinion are you still happy to walk away from an EICR knowing you may 'maybe on a rare occasion' have left a dangerous circuit..

I understand why you use your method.
I understand that is how they teach it now
I am not arguing that it is wrong as it expressed it may just be statistically so rare that it doesn't warrant proving the actual integrity of the cpc itself but just that you have a return path that passes requirements.

All of the above I understand, it is your professional opinion I am after and do you agree that your method can leave a dangerous situation in some cases?

If the answer is yes then I have made my point although I am not suggesting you are testing it wrong, clearly those minds that decide these matters will have factored such risks into their guidance.

I note when looking around the internet I found this is actually a subject raised on many occasions over the yrs and with conflicting answers depending where you sourced it but I have seen already a couple of older threads that do have this method been mentioned and expressing they were taught that way as was I.
Please remember I came from a generation where our Megger's were wind up (irrelevant I know) and domestic electrical safety was just basic, no RCD's or Arc detection devices in sight.
There was also a drive to change all lead piping into premises into plastic, this is probably why we had to be certain of cpc integrity and also that parallel paths were taken out of the equation as many circuits were losing earthing as it was lost by upgrades to gas and water mains, I will remind you that using the piping was once the method of choice so you can appreciate the risks in isolating it with plastic incomer. I also remember this caused a lot of hassle and people were reporting getting shocks at the time, it was even on the news if I recall so they then rolled out information leaflets to get your Earthing and Bonding checked before the works were done, some companies brought their own Sparks in to survey each installation and then quoted for any additional work to correct the installation before the work could be done.
This maybe why we have very different teachings but also shows you the obvious weakness/flaw in modern testing methods, wouldn't you agree.

As I have pointed out already, any and all tests leave the risk of dangerous defects being undetected. This is why testing supplements inspection and is not as important as inspection and does not replace it. It is also why care must be exercised when designing and constructing installations. If you believe that any and all faults can be found with testing - or even through inspection and testing - then that is a deeply flawed view. Periodic inspection and testing is not a perfect process - but then no human process is or can be.

 

[MFS Electrical]

A very poor excuse. If anything doing the dead tests would have been a good opportunity to rectify the 'poor state' for minimal effort.

Unless it was wired in singles then it would just be a headache nevertheless there are ways to carry out The required tests without locating the CPCs.

 

[Darkwood]

As I have pointed out already, any and all tests leave the risk of dangerous defects being undetected. This is why testing supplements inspection and is not as important as inspection and does not replace it. It is also why care must be exercised when designing and constructing installations. If you believe that any and all faults can be found with testing - or even through inspection and testing - then that is a deeply flawed view. Periodic inspection and testing is not a perfect process - but then no human process is or can be.

I also agreed and raised that point earlier, however what I raised is something that can easily be checked for with minimal effect in the majority of cases domestic wise, this is what i am trying to get across, many of the issues that are not detected during an EICR cannot be detected because they simply cannot be observed without major disruption like pulling the property apart and/or picked up by any test procedure, this one can and is why I am asking for your professional opinion, not excuses for not doing it.

 

[Risteard]

You remove R1 and R2 at one end of the circuit and connect together (connector not a link from the earth bar to mcb), you then go to the other end and do the same but this time you put your meter across both R1 and R2, we were taught this method as it ensures you are only testing the circuit earth and not getting erroneous readings from what could be unreliable parallel paths, if it has changed and you were taught different then that be the case but throughout this thread I have expressed that doing it as you suggest can leave the circuit unsafe for the reasons expressed, I have on several occasions now said that if we forgot which is the method used now and taught can you not see the issues I raised and in your professional opinion are you still happy to walk away from an EICR knowing you may 'maybe on a rare occasion' have left a dangerous circuit..

I understand why you use your method.
I understand that is how they teach it now
I am not arguing that it is wrong as it expressed it may just be statistically so rare that it doesn't warrant proving the actual integrity of the cpc itself but just that you have a return path that passes requirements.

All of the above I understand, it is your professional opinion I am after and do you agree that your method can leave a dangerous situation in some cases?

If the answer is yes then I have made my point although I am not suggesting you are testing it wrong, clearly those minds that decide these matters will have factored such risks into their guidance.

I note when looking around the internet I found this is actually a subject raised on many occasions over the yrs and with conflicting answers depending where you sourced it but I have seen already a couple of older threads that do have this method been mentioned and expressing they were taught that way as was I.
Please remember I came from a generation where our Megger's were wind up (irrelevant I know) and domestic electrical safety was just basic, no RCD's or Arc detection devices in sight.
There was also a drive to change all lead piping into premises into plastic, this is probably why we had to be certain of cpc integrity and also that parallel paths were taken out of the equation as many circuits were losing earthing as it was lost by upgrades to gas and water mains, I will remind you that using the piping was once the method of choice so you can appreciate the risks in isolating it with plastic incomer. I also remember this caused a lot of hassle and people were reporting getting shocks at the time, it was even on the news if I recall so they then rolled out information leaflets to get your Earthing and Bonding checked before the works were done, some companies brought their own Sparks in to survey each installation and then quoted for any additional work to correct the installation before the work could be done.
This maybe why we have very different teachings but also shows you the obvious weakness/flaw in modern testing methods, wouldn't you agree.

As I have pointed out already, any and all tests leave the risk of dangerous defects being undetected. This is why testing supplements inspection and is not as important as inspection and does not replace it. It is also why care must be exercised when designing and constructing installations. If you believe that any and all faults can be found with testing - or even through inspection and testing - then that is a deeply flawed view. Periodic inspection and testing is not a perfect process - but then no human process is or can be.

I also agreed and raised that point earlier, however what I raised is something that can easily be checked for with minimal effect in the majority of cases domestic wise, this is what i am trying to get across, many of the issues that are not detected during an EICR cannot be detected because they simply cannot be observed without major disruption like pulling the property apart and/or picked up by any test procedure, this one can and is why I am asking for your professional opinion, not excuses for not doing it.

Hardly excuses. I have demonstrated clearly how it will be no more beneficial, yet you are seeking excuses to pretend that it's somehow going to achieve something which a loop test won't.

The very fact that you suggesting that cpc continuity should be proven by disconnecting the cpc makes this clear - your test will do nothing to prove that the cpc is actually adequately connected to exposed-conductive-parts or cpc terminals. My professional opinion is that your belief in this test for periodic inspection and testing is misguided and will not result in safer installations but will cost the client much more in terms of labour and inconvenience with the installation de-energised for lengthy periods.

 

[Risteard]

Incidentally, do you conduct a test for erroneous connections between phase conductors? I realise that this test is not prescribed by BS7671 but surely by your argument you should do it anyway to ensure safer electrical installations. (Other national standards do prescribe such a test, so it's not something I've invented.)

 

[Risteard]

Also do you insulation test between live conductors? If not, why not?

 

[Darkwood]

Also do you insulation test between live conductors? If not, why not?

was taught to and still do... it's like life when a property price estimator can drive passed a house now without any in-depth survey ... fast track and sidestepping half the survey.

 

[Risteard]

was taught to and still do... it's like life when a property price estimator can drive passed a house now without any in-depth survey ... fast track and sidestepping half the survey.

You insulation test between live conductors during periodic inspection and testing? Seriously? In large industrial installations? Without unnecessary dismantling?

 

[Darkwood]

You insulation test between live conductors during periodic inspection and testing? Seriously? In large industrial installations? Without unnecessary dismantling?

Throughout this thread it has been maintained that we are discussing domestic, no one is talking industrial, this brings in many limitations and agreements just not seen or practised in the domesic arena, I have expressed we were taught differently and also given you the reasons, you still haven't give a view as I asked in your professional position that for the sake of a small amount of effort and time you can possibly identify dangerous scenarios that your routine would simply miss, I understand that we simple cannot identify all issues as there are clear limitations to what can be discovered with an EICR but given that a R1 + R2 is a small detour from your routine and it is not a major disruption or effort do you not agree that it provides a better scope on the condition of a domestic install and crucially can identify several issues that could be classed as a danger and missed in your method. I no longer care how you are taught here or who is right or wrong, I just want your professional opinion and not another reply justifying your method.

Finally I will say I seem to be chasing my tail here trying to get you to see my point and you to answer it directly so will bow out of the conversation if you again misdirect the conversation to avoid a direct answer.
We were taught differently, my method is the one I prefer to use, if your method was the only way to do things then why do they even bother putting the result boxes on the certificates regardless where you source them, to me if there was only your method to doing an EICR then the paperwork would not include R1+R2 as space is at a premium on those sheets as it is.

 

[Risteard]

I expressly gave you my view several posts ago had you cared to read it. And talk of insulation testing between live conductors during periodic inspection is frankly laughable.

 

[sheppertonspark]

A difficult one Butch, I don't know the legalities, but if you continue to talk to the CAB and the NICEIC, then copy the Electrician in question as well, this may result in a reaction from the Electrician in question, but it may/should act as a resolution should you, or more importantly the Electrician, should he invoke the payment within 7 day clause on the invoice. I'm sure any attempt to invoke this clause by the Electrician will be looked on favorably, by any resulting court case, be open in all your correspondence to all parties, again good luck, the convening authorities don't like little people, you in this instance (no offence) getting shafted, hope it all goes well.

 

[sheppertonspark]

NICEIC rules state that you the Customer should ask the Contractor for a complaints form which he must provide you with. Failure to do so I believe would result in his expulsion from the "Club".
In my opinion it is a poor report anyway. The summary of the condition of the installation has 2 options satisfactory or unsatisfactory.It should be broken down into concise sections for example in the most basic of installations: Earthing and bonding, circuit and shock protection, wiring system and accessories, the comments he has written here belong on page 3 of the report. Also what is the point of quoting regulation numbers to a layman ? Are you going to spend a hundred quid buying a regs book ? He has correctly stated unsatisfactory because of the shock risk from the sockets being left loose. Why he didn't he just screw them back. Since he wants to be pedantic perhaps play him at his own game. He had a duty of care under Health & Safety laws to take steps to remove the danger present. He did not do so but had "in law" guilty knowledge of the fault present. Did he issue a danger notice ? I doubt it. Seems he has forgotten who the customer is and that he is being paid for his knowledge and expertise, unfortunately a lot of sparks think they are the "Electricity Police".
The NIC's procedure is to encourage the member and customer to resolve the dispute between themselves, if you have fallen out with the guy that is not likely to happen, it will be a long drawn out procedure to get the work done again for free.
My advice would be to bite the bullet and employ another sparks who likes to look after his customers (most of us trade on word of mouth recommendation and are careful not to offend).
I understand you will lose out financially.
P.S. my own personal opinion is that electrics should be left to the professionals.
Rant over.

 

[Santa]

"
P.S. my own personal opinion is that electrics should be left to the professionals.
Rant over."

Herein is my problem as a not quite ignorant member of the public. If the 'professionals' on this forum cannot agree as to what should be included in such a basic test; let alone what is a reasonable charge and a proper approach, how on earth am I supposed to identify a 'competent' electrician?

Also, like many people, including the OP, I (think) I am quite capable of doing my own minor work, like running a spur or even a new RFC. I don't really know, and reading this board I am probably even less clear, about what I am allowed to do. "Get a professional in" you will all chorus but read my first paragraph.

This is not unique to your trade; I have had problems with every trade from plumbers to car repairs, and I bet that most householders have too.

Incidentally, I see that faulty electrical wiring is quite a way down on the list of causes of domestic fires. Curious children are more dangerous it seems.

The Most Common Causes of House Fires

1. Cooking Equipment. Pots and pans can overheat and cause a fire very easily if the person cooking gets distracted and leaves cooking unattended. ...
2. Heating. ...
3. Smoking in bedrooms. ...
4. Electrical Equipment. ...
5. Candles. ...
6. Curious Children. ...
7. Faulty Wiring. ...
8. Barbeques.

 

[sheppertonspark]

Does not warrant a comment