This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

The EICR and competence. What are we going to do about the endless problems brought to the forum?

Your answers Gentlemen, please. This is indicating a serious problem in the Industry. Trust is now zero. I am disgusted with the behavior of these alleged "inspectors" who are dim, dumb, deaf and blind, and cannot read the BBB. It is not good enough is it?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I have informed the property management company about an issue I have had recently with an EICR and they have taken it seriously.  They informed me they are concerned because this particular contractor does a lot of work for them and have inspected many properties in the past.  The property management company are down on the EICR's as the client.

    As a professional Electrical Engineer this has somewhat concerned me and believe steps need to be taken to address this issue.  I was told I have to have an EICR from a NICEIC registered company and believe I have been badly let down by this scheme.  I know there are a lot of competent electrical contractors out there who are being given a bad name by the few that don't seem to have integrity or a conscience.


    Paul Walker IEng MIET MEI
  • I agree, there is a very general view among the public and among private landlords in particular, that the present EICR scheme is a money making scam with only a very limited connection to actual electrical safety.


    I hear of far too many cases of new installations done by respected companies being ruled unsatisfactory only a few years afterwards. Often on spurious grounds. Many such cases can cost thousands of pounds to "rectify" and yet still be unsatisfactory next time.


    There does not even seem to be any clear view as to whether or not wiring regulations are retrospective.


    In my view, we need a law or regulation that states that any installation that was compliant when erected shall remain compliant, for say 20 years after completion. Subject to not having suffered damage etc. 

    So an installation correctly designed and installed this year should remain approved until 2041.

    Regulations can be updated, but should not in my view be applied retrospectively, until say 20 years after the update.
  • davezawadi (David Stone):

    Your answers Gentlemen, please.


    Why limit the pool of experience?

     



    This is indicating a serious problem in the Industry. Trust is now zero. I am disgusted with the behavior of these alleged "inspectors" who are dim, dumb, deaf and blind, and cannot read the BBB. It is not good enough is it?



    It's an interesting discussion.


    We could start with how the 2391 has changed over the past 15 years or so.


    The question is - is it the exam that's too hard, or the complex web of standards (multiple - not just BS 7671) and legislation, that have to be met?


    It's certainly not conducive to the industry for there to be 4 sets of devolved national guidance and rules in the UK for simple installations such as those in dwellings, on top of an already complex web of standards.


    And then there's the issue of the burden of technology - not just "nice to have" things, but other aspects that are key to our energy efficient future, which will be on us all too quickly.

     




  • It is obviously not good enough.


    However, the blame is solely with the government.

    They introduce unnecessary new laws merely for effect while using words and terms of which no one knows the meaning - electrical safety report; qualified person - while ignoring the fact that absolutely anyone can purport to be competent and carry out electrical work in England. 


    The usual practice of most laws relating to such things will be employed; namely nothing will be done to police any work or results until someone is killed when blame can be apportioned to anyone other than a negligent government.






  • In the particular context of the new rented sector regulations: there is no requirement for the periodic I&T to be done according to BS 7671, nor indeed to any standard, nor even any requirement to check whether the installation is safe; merely that it has to be done by a competent person. There is an absolute requirement for the landlord to remedy within 28 days anything identified in the report as not being compliant with BS 7671:2018 - with no regard to older, but still safe, arrangements; and with no mechanism to challenge a faulty report; and with no protection if the report is not delivered to you within 28 days of the date of inspection - you must still have fixed any defects before potentially even having seeing the report.


    Obviously a landlord might hope or expect a council and/or tribunal to take a pragmatic approach to enforcement, but laws shouldn't need to reply on goodwill not to be abused. And it does make bad EICRs a lot more problematic.
  • Nobody actually set out the expectations.


    Should a forty year old with a Wylex fuse board with rewirable fuses as circuit protection and a complete lack of RCD protection be deemed acceptable in a rented home in 2021, because no one has upgraded the installation in the last forty years, so it is the same now as when it was installed?
  • Sparkingchip:

    Nobody actually set out the expectations.


    Should a forty year old with a Wylex fuse board with rewirable fuses as circuit protection and a complete lack of RCD protection be deemed acceptable in a rented home in 2021, because no one has upgraded the installation in the last forty years, so it is the same now as when it was installed?


    Not acceptable any more IN MY VIEW for a rented property, Apart from other considerations, it is a lot older than my proposed 20 year limit on "grandfathering" existing and once compliant installs.

    However a home rewired in 2002 and in compliance with the then applicable regulations should in my view still be acceptable, but would require bringing up to the latest standards by 2022.


    I wonder how many rented properties that have just been upgraded to the latest standards, will be again ruled unsatisfactory in 2026, due to lack of arc fault protection, and then found unsatisfactory YET AGAIN in 2031 for want of something not yet invented.


     


  • I suspect the traditional answer would be to set up a "scheme" to oversee competence for producing EICRs - even if they're not statutory it/they could be seen as an industry benchmark that conscientious customers could specify as a contractual requirement (a bit like NICEIC in the old pre part-P days). But of course we already have schemes that amongst other things do approve people for producing EICRs - so some blame should head in that direction. At the very least they should arrange things to it's obvious to the public which of their members are approved for which activities.


       - Andy.
  • davezawadi (David Stone):

    Your answers Gentlemen, please. This is indicating a serious problem in the Industry. Trust is now zero. I am disgusted with the behavior of these alleged "inspectors" who are dim, dumb, deaf and blind, and cannot read the BBB. It is not good enough is it?


    Sure plays a mean pinball though?


  • It is the same as it ever was. The new rental law has just put it into sharp relief. Membership of a club has to all intent become mandatory in order to trade. The membership is big money for the schemes and maintaining the integrity of the brands means three wise monkeys; very much keep your head down and do not rock the gravy train. So, really, a  protection tennis racket.


    The key, though, is what the market will price an EICR, especially Rental ones. The market demands cheap up front. So less effort goes into the procedure, especially the "Inspection" bit and the final evaluation bit. If the price means less time in the house, an accurate assessment is going to go out the window and there will be a temptation to code from the hip with the added benefit of follow on remedial work .  Another is that most electricians experience of "Inspection" is for initial verification, when the annual scheme assessor picks up "issues" with the new work chosen for annual assessment. Unfortunately, the perception of in-service verification is that it is low competency and of a lesser value to actual installation work. The Inspection Engineers for the schemes are a large part of the problem; some have a tendency to set the bar at the lowest common denominator, in respect of technical ability, so over compensate by applying an over engineered "deemed to comply" strategy to everyone. Your are guilty until you can prove your innocence. That, unsurprisingly, leads to many taking the easy route of everything, including things completely unrelated to the work you have done or the EICR you have carried out, being subjected to "compliance" with the latest version of BS7671 or the particular foible of an Inspection Engineer. That particular foible can be an insistence that only only a fully populated RCBO domestic consumer unit can comply with BS7671, for example.


    Nothing will change. If you set the Inspector technical  level too high, 80% of those conducting EICRs would be unemployed. It would be fundamentally easier if there were a periodic inspection particularly tailored to rental inspection. Something no more than two pages of A4, a simple stop/go tick box approach, but brutally prescriptive, like the vehicle MOT.