Rewire after failed EICR. Have we been scammed?

[Peggyhenry89]

My parents had an EICR completed after a change of tenant in the shop and flat property, this took place March 2021.

The summary of the report stated that the premises was dangerous and the full rewire was required to make it safe.

I have since completed a the C&G inspection and testing course through work and took a chance to have a look at the EICR given to us by our estate management firm.

I have noticed that the report does not contain any observations with the classification of C1 or C2 that would result in the requiring a full rewire. And also the inspector did not carry out any electrical tests to verify the condition of the existing installation (insulation resistance). The only observations included we C3 or FI all of which would not require a full rewire to make it safe.

There are also other mistakes and ommissions which suggest that the report was false and made to look like the premises was unsafe just to convince my parents that the wiring needed changing.

The inspector was contracted to carry out the EICR for the full premises which included a ground floor shop and first floor flat. I can only see information regarding the downstairs shop (DB1).

Now I am not suggesting that a week long course makes me an expert in EICR but it definitely makes me more aware of what to look for in a report.

We put our trust in the inspector and the l letting agent who recommended them.

My parents spent a lot of money on the full rewire and a second opinion has told us that the rewire was not required.

We believe that the inspector has acted unlawfully (breach of contract by not completing all tests included in the EICR, except limitations) and also immorraly. Both which means my parents paid out £8000 when it wasn't required.

The inspector is also a member of NAPIT so is obliged to carry out work to the proper electrical standard.

Does anyone else think we have sufficient recourse to make a complaint to trading standards, NAPIT and potential small claims?

I have attached the EICR for reference.

Thanks

 

[littlespark]

If there’s no C1 or C2, then the EICR is satisfactory.
C3 doesn’t mean it’s unsafe, but as the shop is open to the public, then they would be trying to make it as safe as possible for the general public.

It could be argued that a rewire wasn’t needed, maybe just a new consumer unit to add rcd protection to the circuits.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

If there’s no C1 or C2, then the EICR is satisfactory.
C3 doesn’t mean it’s unsafe, but as the shop is open to the public, then they would be trying to make it as safe as possible for the general public.

It could be argued that a rewire wasn’t needed, maybe just a new consumer unit to add rcd protection to the circuits.

Hi littlespark

Thanks for the reply.

I agree with what you say. I believe that the statement in section E should not have been made as a complete rewire was not the only remedy alongside the fact that the electrical system should have been marked as satisfactory.

Thanks

 

[brianmoooore]

Page 4 shows a 30mA RCD for all circuits, but doesn't record trip times. ?????

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Page 4 shows a 30mA RCD for all circuits, but doesn't record trip times. ?????

My course lecturer pointed thus out to me as well. Do you agree that this EICR has not been carried out properly and the statement that the premises is unsatisfactory and unsafe is false?

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Page 4 shows a 30mA RCD for all circuits, but doesn't record trip times. ?????

Also, no maximum Zs stated but no Zs measured apart from one.

TT system recorded but Ze recorded as 0.25 ohms. Only measured Zs recorded as 54.5 ohms

 

[brianmoooore]

As littlespark has written above, no C1s or C2s = officially satisfactory.
I've recommended full rewires on many occasions where the installation is 'satisfactory', but this is always because there are so many alterations and extensions proposed to be made to that installation, that it would be easier, cheaper and give better results, to simply start again.
Assuming the new installation is similar in location and number of points to the original, then that does not apply here.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

As littlespark has written above, no C1s or C2s = officially satisfactory.
I've recommended full rewires on many occasions where the installation is 'satisfactory', but this is always because there are so many alterations and extensions proposed to be made to that installation, that it would be easier, cheaper and give better results, to simply start again.
Assuming the new installation is similar in location and number of points to the original, then that does not apply here.

This EICR was due to a new tenant occupying the premises. No work was planned apart from what was said on the outcome of the EICR.

Since the EICR was carried out extensive rewiring was completed. All of which has been tested and Inspected.

As the initial EICR was completed incorrectly I believe that the rewiring was not necessary.

Thanks for your reply

 

[brianmoooore]

Have you asked the inspector involved to comment?

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Have you asked the inspector involved to comment?

No not yet. The original inspection took place in March 2021 and the rewire has since been completed.

I have spoken to the Citizens Advice but I was looking to see what other inspectors might think of the report.

I will probably contact the inspector to try and remedy it and look to putting a complaint to trading standards and NAPIT

 

[Dartlec]

The EICR is not very helpful in terms of gauging the condition of the wiring at the time - which by itself would suggest it's not a great 'condition report', which is what it is meant to be after all.

Do you have any idea what the cabling was like before they tested?

The schedule of tests seems to suggest that they carried out no Insulation Resistance tests, which makes it hard to judge if there was any problem with the existing cabling or not.

If it was all VIR (50s black rubber) then a rewire could be fairly recommended just on visual inspection basis. If the cabling was anything from 70s on, then there is every chance it was still perfectly fit for purpose.

There are time when a rewire is still a sensible consideration - if lots of adjusting of sockets is needed, for example, or if the circuits are so interlinked and confusing that starting from scratch would be better. But that should always come with a discussion of the pros and cons.

Unless the wiring was very old, or seriously damaged in ways that are not clear from the EICR, I can't see any reason why a rewire would be required to make it safe.

Did you get any quotation in writing at the time, or anything in writing that went into more detail than 'needs rewiring'?

IMO, the EICR is not very useful and is missing even the minimum tests that I'd consider should have been done for a dwelling (even aside the possible issue with shop/flat confusion).

Stroma/Napit will probably have a complaints procedure in place, which may well be worth following up on. At the very least, it will mean that they will have to justify their report to their inspector at an annual assessment.

 

[MJPD29]

My course lecturer pointed thus out to me as well. Do you agree that this EICR has not been carried out properly and the statement that the premises is unsatisfactory and unsafe is false?

No I don't agree that the statement of unsatisfactory is false. The lack of RCD protection for certain circuits would attract a c2 from a lot of people, and it can be justified. Basic insulation of a conductor outside of an enclosure may also attract a c2. The testing carried out has been poor, but overall there's a good chance the report, even when carried out properly, will still be unsatisfactory.

 

[brianmoooore]

In that case they should have been C2s, not C3s.
There's so little of the results filled in, that we can't make a judgement.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

No I don't agree that the statement of unsatisfactory is false. The lack of RCD protection for certain circuits would attract a c2 from a lot of people, and it can be justified. Basic insulation of a conductor outside of an enclosure may also attract a c2. The testing carried out has been poor, but overall there's a good chance the report, even when carried out properly, will still be unsatisfactory.

Hi Matthewd29

Yes I agree that the absence of RCD protection can be a C2. However, the regs are not retroactive and also if disconnection times are met then an RCD is not required. The inspector hasn't tested the Zs to determine if disconnection times would have been met with the original installation. Also, if the inspector believed that the lack of RCDs was a C2 then why didn't he put them down as C2 in the observations? If RCDs were required then a total rewire was not necessary, the CU could have been changed keeping the original wiring. If the IR was carried out then the condition of wiring would've been assessed and may have meant that the wiring may have needed to have been changed.

Sorry if I am being unreasonable in my judgement. I just feel that if there is a chance my parents have been ripped off I want to ensure that the person responsible has been held to account

Thanks

 

[littlespark]

I think we’re now getting into realms of legality, and although we can give advice, you may need the services of an actual lawyer.

You can approach their CPS, Napit and ask them to comment, and trading standards… But I don’t see what they could do.
You could also check the company in question is actually a member of Napit, and not just using their name.

For a job costing £8k, a lot of people would have gone for 2 or 3 quotes, and this consultation with other companies may have brought up the inaccuracies on the EICR…. That might not have happened if there was a short time frame before getting the tenant in.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

I think we’re now getting into realms of legality, and although we can give advice, you may need the services of an actual lawyer.

You can approach their CPS, Napit and ask them to comment, and trading standards… But I don’t see what they could do.
You could also check the company in question is actually a member of Napit, and not just using their name.

For a job costing £8k, a lot of people would have gone for 2 or 3 quotes, and this consultation with other companies may have brought up the inaccuracies on the EICR…. That might not have happened if there was a short time frame before getting the tenant in.

Hi littlespark

I have approaced Citizens Advice and I intend to contact either the letting agency or inspector to progress further.

My parents are naive when it comes to this and I am only just dipping my toes in thus industry so at the time none of us new what to look for on a EICR. We should've gone for more quotes but my parents were rushed by the letting agent and told they only had 30 days to get the EICR and any remedial work completed.

Thanks for your advice

Andrew

 

[pc1966]

Do you have any photos or records, etc, from the original time?

If it is a TT installation without RCD protection then it is most certainly not going to be satisfactory.

The only way (assuming it was measured correctly) that I can see getting 0.25 ohms Zs would be via service pipes, and you should never relay on those as a means of earthing (in the regs, number not to hand). If those pipes are changed to plastic (as most plumbing and new gas mains are now) you would be on to the earth electrode and not able to disconnect on any over-current protection.

I fully agree that as an EICR it is incomplete and lacking in information, and if my understanding of its original situation is right the lack of RCD protection is a C2. Also if there are any sockets that are likely to be used for outside stuff (e.g. extension lead for gardening or hoovering a car, etc) that is also C2 for lack of RCD.

The NAIPT guidance is more restrictive as C2 for most other lack of RCD situations, but many folks here go with the Best Practice guide #4 and they would be saying C2 for failure to disconnect on a TT rod's Ra (not measured it seems?) as well as sockets on the ground-floor that might be used outside (also for bathroom without full supplementary bonding, etc)

As already stated, a CU change would be enough for those aspects, but without knowing the condition of the cables and other aspects such as past poor work or cracked/damaged accessories it is hard to say if a rewire was justified or not.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Do you have any photos or records, etc, from the original time?

If it is a TT installation without RCD protection then it is most certainly not going to be satisfactory.

The only way (assuming it was measured correctly) that I can see getting 0.25 ohms Zs would be via service pipes, and you should never relay on those as a means of earthing (in the regs, number not to hand). If those pipes are changed to plastic (as most plumbing and new gas mains are now) you would be on to the earth electrode and not able to disconnect on any over-current protection.

I fully agree that as an EICR it is incomplete and lacking in information, and if my understanding of its original situation is right the lack of RCD protection is a C2. Also if there are any sockets that are likely to be used for outside stuff (e.g. extension lead for gardening or hoovering a car, etc) that is also C2 for lack of RCD.

The NAIPT guidance is more restrictive as C2 for most other lack of RCD situations, but many folks here go with the Best Practice guide #4 and they would be saying C2 for failure to disconnect on a TT rod's Ra (not measured it seems?) as well as sockets on the ground-floor that might be used outside (also for bathroom without full supplementary bonding, etc)

As already stated, a CU change would be enough for those aspects, but without knowing the condition of the cables and other aspects such as past poor work or cracked/damaged accessories it is hard to say if a rewire was justified or not.

Hi PC1966

The schedule of test results state that there are 30mA RCDs fitted to each circuit. Also, I have just checked the EIC from after the rewire done by another company and it states that the Ze is now 24.4 ohms, this also questions the validity of the original Ze meausure of 0.35ohms, unless the new installer have removed a lot of earthing conductors.

Thanks

 

[pc1966]

The schedule of test results state that there are 30mA RCDs fitted to each circuit. Also, I have just checked the EIC

Yes, test results say there is in one column but no test times, etc, for that, and the lack of RCD aspect is there as a C3 point.

Do you have a photo showing an RCD was actually present?

My suspicion is there was none but the form was auto-filled to have that column completed. Do you know when that installation was dated from?

from after the rewire done by another company and it states that the Ze is now 24.4 ohms, this also questions the validity of the original Ze measure of 0.35ohms, unless the new installer have removed a lot of earthing conductors.

Ze would be the "means of earthing" alone so could be 24 ohms as quite reasonable for a rod or two.

Zs is the in-use impedance with any bonding, etc, present. Are there measure Zs figures for individual circuits? They would show if bonding was taking the figure down to < 1 ohm, etc.

It is not uncommon for pipe work to be bonded in other nearby properties to a TN-C-S or TN-S system and so they can well drop the impedance down that way, but it is not reliable as anyone anywhere on the system can make a repair and not maintain electrical continuity quite legitimately.

 

[pc1966]

Just to add that when you are characterising a system there are two distinct aspects to measure:

• The Ze as the official "means of earthing". This is the value you ought to depend on for circuit desing and generally it would dictate if fault clearing on OCPD is possible (usual case on TN supplies) or if you are dependant on an RCD (usual case for TT).
• The Zs as the in-use impedance. That allows a measurement of both the PFC (fault to earth current) and the PSCC (L-N fault) so you know the highest current that any OCPD has to interrupt.

In most cases your standard CU MCB/RCBO on a domestic supply has no problems in interrupting the maximum current, but older rewirable fuses can have breaking limits as low as 1kA which can be exceeded fairly easily. in industrial situations toy might well find supplies that can exceed the usual 6-15kA for an MCB!

Even on domestic if you have a RCD it typically can only interrupt around 1.5kA so you must have some means to limit the current to within that range. Typically if you have a MCB in series then its "instant" magnetic trip is faster than a RCD so limits the fault current, but on a fuse or similar you might need to depend on a delay-RCD and to check that your fuse blowing time at that 1.5kA is less than the RCD's delay period so it is not interrupting the full current.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Yes, test results say there is in one column but no test times, etc, for that, and the lack of RCD aspect is there as a C3 point.

Do you have a photo showing an RCD was actually present?

My suspicion is there was none but the form was auto-filled to have that column completed. Do you know when that installation was dated from?

Ze would be the "means of earthing" alone so could be 24 ohms as quite reasonable for a rod or two.

Zs is the in-use impedance with any bonding, etc, present. Are there measure Zs figures for individual circuits? They would show if bonding was taking the figure down to < 1 ohm, etc.

It is not uncommon for pipe work to be bonded in other nearby properties to a TN-C-S or TN-S system and so they can well drop the impedance down that way, but it is not reliable as anyone anywhere on the system can make a repair and not maintain electrical continuity quite legitimately.

Sorry I don't know exactly when it was first installed but I could have been 80s perhaps and I unfortunately do not have any pics of the original install.

Either way. The lack of RCDs is not down as a C2 and even if it was the statement saying that the complete rewire of both flat and shop is misleading.

Thanks for your advice. I'm still pretty new to this but if my parents have been scammed I'd like to pursue it. Although I will admit that we were all a but naive at the time and should've questioned it but we put our trust in the letting agent and the inspector

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Just to add that when you are characterising a system there are two distinct aspects to measure:

• The Ze as the official "means of earthing". This is the value you ought to depend on for circuit desing and generally it would dictate if fault clearing on OCPD is possible (usual case on TN supplies) or if you are dependant on an RCD (usual case for TT).
• The Zs as the in-use impedance. That allows a measurement of both the PFC (fault to earth current) and the PSCC (L-N fault) so you know the highest current that any OCPD has to interrupt.

In most cases your standard CU MCB/RCBO on a domestic supply has no problems in interrupting the maximum current, but older rewirable fuses can have breaking limits as low as 1kA which can be exceeded fairly easily. in industrial situations toy might well find supplies that can exceed the usual 6-15kA for an MCB!

Even on domestic if you have a RCD it typically can only interrupt around 1.5kA so you must have some means to limit the current to within that range. Typically if you have a MCB in series then its "instant" magnetic trip is faster than a RCD so limits the fault current, but on a fuse or similar you might need to depend on a delay-RCD and to check that your fuse blowing time at that 1.5kA is less than the RCD's delay period so it is not interrupting the full current.

Can I ask your professional opinion. If you were given the EICR we received would you say from what was on the report that the only remedy would be a full rewire?

 

[brianmoooore]

This thread, like many others, is drifting off course, and is becoming a discussion of whether some C3s should have been C2, etc.
The fact is that there were NO C1 or C2 classifications on this EICR, so it should not have been 'unsatisfactory', or require ANY work to make it so.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

This thread, like many others, is drifting off course, and is becoming a discussion of whether some C3s should have been C2, etc.
The fact is that there were NO C1 or C2 classifications on this EICR, so it should not have been 'unsatisfactory', or require ANY work to make it so.

Thank you brianmooore.

May I also ask your professional opinion. If you were given the EICR we received would you say there has been any issues highlighted that would mean that the only remedy was to fully rewire both shop and flat?

 

[pc1966]

Can I ask your professional opinion. If you were given the EICR we received would you say from what was on the report that the only remedy would be a full rewire?

I could not say either way.

It is a poor EICR as I think we all agree, but without more information from the time it is hard to judge.

My own suspicion is it lacked RCDs protection and that ought to have been down as C2, based on the age and various aspects of the EICR (TT earthing, lack of measurements, C3 on schedule), but sadly the best option would have been a 2nd opinion at the time (or some photos, etc, showing the installation).

 

[littlespark]

Ah… I thought those that did the EICR, also did the rewire… now realise it was another firm.

Was the rewiring company given the EICR, or were they just told “can you rewire this for us?”

They would just be doing what they were asked to do.
There may have been questions if someone said there was an unsatisfactory EICR, but the stuff they were pulling out was still ok.

Some customers do ask for work that doesn’t technically need done

Your issue is a misleading EICR, but now, you can’t really get a second opinion if it’s all been “corrected”

 

[Peggyhenry89]

Ah… I thought those that did the EICR, also did the rewire… now realise it was another firm.

Was the rewiring company given the EICR, or were they just told “can you rewire this for us?”

They would just be doing what they were asked to do.
There may have been questions if someone said there was an unsatisfactory EICR, but the stuff they were pulling out was still ok.

Some customers do ask for work that doesn’t technically need done

Your issue is a misleading EICR, but now, you can’t really get a second opinion if it’s all been “corrected”

Sorry if I was unclear. Yes I have no issue with the team doing the rewire. As you say they were instructed to do the work. They did a shoddy job but that is another problem!

My problem is the misleading EICR that was used to convince my parents that the only remedy to their "dangerous" installation was a full rewire when we have all seen that the observations were all C3 and FI.

I think our complaint lies with our letting agent as we pay them to manage our property and our best interests. I was just after a professional opinion on the state of the original EICR and the recommendation of a full rewire.

Brianmooore hit the nail on the head I think. There were zero C1 and C2 therefore the system should not have been deemed unsatisfactory. And even if the missing RCD was down as a C2 it didn't warrant a full rewire. Plus other missing tests which would determine the condition of the wiring

 

[brianmoooore]

Based on that report, I suspect that there are issues with the earthing arrangements that haven't been properly flagged up by the EICR, but there is nothing in that report to suggest that a rewire is required. This is largely because there is next to nothing in the report.

 

[pc1966]

As an aside, there was a discussion elsewhere about if you could have "unsatisfactory" EICR without C2 or worse and the opinions were kind of split. Officially you must have something that is unsatisfactory and can be clearly identified as so on the EICR, but there was also the discussion about an installation where you had so many C3 issues, each of which was not too big on its own, but in total it that led to the belief the whole installation was not acceptably safe.

Sadly none of this helps the OP without any other evidence like photos or similar from the time!

The simple answer is the EICR ought not to have been "unsatisfactory" without C2/C1 (or FI but that is another discussion)

But looking at it my own view is the balance of probabilities says no RCD and on TT & ground floor sockets that should have been a C2. That aspect would only need a CU change, not a rewire.

But if the cable condition, state of accessories, and/or length at the old CU location to fit in to a new one was unsatisfactory then a rewire might be merited. Again, the EICR is poor in that no comments on cable condition or IR values were present, so while it is not unreasonable to think a rewire might have been needed, we don't have evidence one way or another.

 

[Peggyhenry89]

As an aside, there was a discussion elsewhere about if you could have "unsatisfactory" EICR without C2 or worse and the opinions were kind of split. Officially you must have something that is unsatisfactory and can be clearly identified as so on the EICR, but there was also the discussion about an installation where you had so many C3 issues, each of which was not too big on its own, but in total it that led to the belief the whole installation was not acceptably safe.

Sadly none of this helps the OP without any other evidence like photos or similar from the time!

The simple answer is the EICR ought not to have been "unsatisfactory" without C2/C1 (or FI but that is another discussion)

But looking at it my own view is the balance of probabilities says no RCD and on TT & ground floor sockets that should have been a C2. That aspect would only need a CU change, not a rewire.

But if the cable condition, state of accessories, and/or length at the old CU location to fit in to a new one was unsatisfactory then a rewire might be merited. Again, the EICR is poor in that no comments on cable condition or IR values were present, so while it is not unreasonable to think a rewire might have been needed, we don't have evidence one way or another.

Thanks pc1966 I've liked this discussion and learnt a lot.

If we decide to pursue it I'll update this thread

 

[SparkyChick]

The inspector has followed the rules in the regulations.... Page 475 'Notes for the person producing the report'...

"9 Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent
deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and
further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the
code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E."

Whether those items should have had an FI classification or not is another discussion, but FI on anything in an EICR must result in an unsatisfactory result.

Overall that report is a complete waste of time and I (as a NAPIT member) would encourage you to contact NAPIT and discuss this with them.... at the very least the company carrying out the report will be looked at in a bit more detail during their next assessment. As has already been stated, it lacks any meaningful test results, certainly nothing that we can use to judge whether the 'requires a rewire' statement is correct or not.

That being said, anyone quoting for the remedial work should have raised the red flag at seeing the report. If they didn't ask to see it, then they are as guilty as the guy who carried out the EICR for unethical practices as they've just done what was asked rather than looking to see if that was actually the best thing for the client.

 

[pc1966]

The inspector has followed the rules in the regulations.... Page 475 'Notes for the person producing the report'...

"9 Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent
deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and
further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the
code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E."

Whether those items should have had an FI classification or not is another discussion, but FI on anything in an EICR must result in an unsatisfactory result.

That is a good point, thanks for the reminder about 'FI'.

It did have those, even if how justified they were is debatable.

Overall that report is a complete waste of time and I (as a NAPIT member) would encourage you to contact NAPIT and discuss this with them.... at the very least the company carrying out the report will be looked at in a bit more detail during their next assessment. As has already been stated, it lacks any meaningful test results, certainly nothing that we can use to judge whether the 'requires a rewire' statement is correct or not.

Agreed.

That being said, anyone quoting for the remedial work should have raised the red flag at seeing the report. If they didn't ask to see it, then they are as guilty as the guy who carried out the EICR for unethical practices as they've just done what was asked rather than looking to see if that was actually the best thing for the client.

That is possibly harsh!

If you turned up at a property after being told it needed a rewire and found, say, an old Wylex board with plug-in breakers or obsolete CU without RCD, and accessories in a poor state after 30+ years you would probably not doubt it was needed. Yes, once you start you might find cable was actually OK, etc, but at that point a bit committed!

So it might have been a scam and nothing needed doing to the actual cables, or it might have been generally poor so nobody would have seen fault with a phone call saying EICR failed, etc.

 

[SparkyChick]

That is possibly harsh!

If you turned up at a property after being told it needed a rewire and found, say, an old Wylex board with plug-in breakers or obsolete CU without RCD, and accessories in a poor state after 30+ years you would probably not doubt it was needed. Yes, once you start you might find cable was actually OK, etc, but at that point a bit committed!

So it might have been a scam and nothing needed doing, or it might have been generally poor so nobody would have seen fault with a phone call saying EICR failed, etc.

Maybe it is a bit harsh, but my first question whenever I'm asked to quote for a rewire is 'why do you want it doing?'. If they say 'because I've been told by such and such' (or similar or there's a report involved), I ask to see the paperwork and take it from there. Regardless of what the report said (or didn't) I'd probably break out the tester and do a bit of quick investigation (you can get a reasonable idea of the state of the wiring in a relatively short amount of time), take a look in the loft say, check the board out, take a quick look at things like earthing in the lighting circuits, check the ring circuits out maybe. Basically satisfy myself that a rewire is in fact needed. In some cases it's plainly obvious, like the whole place being wired in rubber, but some people seem to suggest it at the drop of a hat... just like they suggest a board change because there's no RCD protection on the upstairs lights and the bathroom is being done out with downlights.

Our first obligation is to our clients, we should be seeking to do what's best for them all the time... yes, we're in business to make money but if that involves doing things that are completely unnecessary just because the client asks us to then we're just not being decent human beings. If you explain the pro's and con's, pricing, potential issues etc. and they still want you to do it then you've done your part to try and make sure they aren't being ripped off.

Unfortunately in this case it's impossible for any of us to say because there's nothing to refer back to regarding the original installation. The report is a waste of time and gives no real indication as to why they deemed it to need a rewire.

One of the topics I discussed with my NAPIT area engineer during my assessment this year was this very subject and he's desperately trying to get funding so he can actively spend more time investigating companies that have complaints made against them... and here we're talking random site vists. I hate hearing about companies that are members of NAPIT doing stuff like this because as with so many other things, we all end up being tarred with the same brush. The other thing that needs to change is for the schemes to allow people other than clients to report members. I keep coming across work carried out by a particular spark and it's bad, everytime... the NICEIC don't give a ---- because I'm not the client.

We all make mistakes, we all have off days and I'm not claiming to be perfect... far from it... but I'd rather talk myself out of a big job and have a clear conscience than knowingly undertake work that simply wasn't required just because the client asked me to.

 

[UNG]

While the EICR does lack a lot the fact that the premises have now been rewired and there is nothing to compare it too makes it difficult to actually form any opinion of how good, bad or indifferent the installation was at the time. A schedule of tests with only 4 circuits listed would suggest separate CU's for the shop and flat if that is the case why only one schedule

While you are looking to possible legal redress I think that may be difficult without the inspectable evidence or a second EICR to support it
The actual timeline isn't clear as to whether the premises were occupied with the new tenant or not when the letting agent pressurised your parents with the 30 days to complete the remedial works

This is definitely a case of hindsight being a wonderful thing and lessons being learned

 

[cliffed]

That report is a disgrace, there are no circuit readings anywhere.
It looks like there’s no MBPC which would be a C2, even though a 10mm cable been indicated.
2.5mm MEC, which also would be a C2, seems to be a manufactured EICR..
Hope you get your compensation, I would be livid…good luck

 

[ferg]

As a possibility, The report looks like someone just gave up half way through.
This happens sometimes where so many faults are found a stop is put to the EICR and a recommendation for a rewire is made.
However this is not indicated on the report, was it made in writing or verbally?
As mentioned above it doesn't look like the flat is on the report either.