Quals to do an EICR?

[Jeremy Harris]

Just had a thought (prompted by the vendor's request for an EICR for our old house).  A far a I can see there isn't a requirement for Part P accreditation to do an EICR, only a need to be competent.  It' not a notifiable job to building control under Part P, as far a I can see, so I can't see why I can't do one, can anyone else?

 

 

[Guest Alphonsox]

3 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Just had a thought (prompted by the vendor's request for an EICR for our old house).  A far a I can see there isn't a requirement for Part P accreditation to do an EICR, only a need to be competent.  It' not a notifiable job to building control under Part P, as far a I can see, so I can't see why I can't do one, can anyone else?

 

It's not a legal requirement for a house sale is it ?

[Jeremy Harris]

7 minutes ago, Alphonsox said:

It's not a legal requirement for a house sale is it ?

 

No, not at all, it's just a pedantic surveyor that suggested the vendor get an EICR, and me trying to be ultra-cautious to make sure there's no reason for them to pull out.  I've already done all the inspection and testing needed, and noted down all the measurements (well, downloaded them from the multitester), and can't, off the top of my head see why I can't just fill in an EICR and give it to her,

[Guest Alphonsox]

1 minute ago, JSHarris said:

 

No, not at all, it's just a pedantic surveyor that suggested the vendor get an EICR, and me trying to be ultra-cautious to make sure there's no reason for them to pull out.  I've already done all the inspection and testing needed, and noted down all the measurements (well, downloaded them from the multitester), and can't, off the top of my head see why I can't just fill in an EICR and give it to her,

 

I would have thought it would be up to the purchaser to organise and pay for whatever surveys they think relevant, including electrical. I can't see that its an issue for you (the vendor) to sort out or pay for.

[ProDave]

Wiring regs just say you have to be competent. So no reason at all why not. But if the purchaser notices your address is the same as the address of the property being tested they might raise a concern.

 

In my case it is handy having 2 addresses, e.g when I do an EICR on the old house, I use the new address. When I do an EIC for the new house, I use the old address.  So just use your new address and there should be no problem.

[newhome]

Just now, ProDave said:

but if the purchaser notices your address is the same as the address of the property being tested they might raise a concern.

 

@JSHarris does have 2 addresses (if he's quick ). Wouldn't they notice that ProDave of house A was the same ProDave tester of House B in the same road? 

[ProDave]

26 minutes ago, newhome said:

 

@JSHarris does have 2 addresses (if he's quick ). Wouldn't they notice that ProDave of house A was the same ProDave tester of House B in the same road? 

The EIC for a rental just goes into the tenants information pack. I suspect, along with things like the EPC certificate, nobody ever reads it.

 

In Jeremy's case his buyer wants an EICR so they know what to expect in terms of any upgrades it may or may not need.  The only "issue" is the buyer then might approach him after completion to do the upgrades?  But then again plenty of garages do MOT's without the ability to fix things that cause a failure.

[Jeremy Harris]

Thank Dave, you've confirmed exactly what I thought. 

 

I've already advised the purchaser that doing an EICR now would be a waste of £100 to £120, as all they will get is an "unsatisfactory" because it's an old fuse box, with no RCDs, and that for about £60 plus labour they could have the fuse box replaced with a 17 Ed CU that would make the installation inherently safer, and they can put the money they were going to spend on getting an EICR done towards something that really will make the installation safer.  The wiring and the rest of the installation itself is fine, I've checked it all now, fixed the one fault in the outside light switch and tested everything, so the only issue in terms of safety is the old fusebox. 

 

I think they want to keep their surveyor happy more than anything else, so being able to tell him they have an EICR that hasn't got any major issues on will probably tick that box and get them to relax about it.

 

There's no way I want to change the fuse box for a current spec CU, but I know a young chap who'll do a good job for them at a fair price.

[MikeSharp01]

2 hours ago, JSHarris said:

No, not at all, it's just a pedantic surveyor that suggested the vendor get an EICR, and me trying to be ultra-cautious to make sure there's no reason for them to pull out.  I've already done all the inspection and testing needed, and noted down all the measurements (well, downloaded them from the multitester), and can't, off the top of my head see why I can't just fill in an EICR and give it to her,

There might be a wrinkle here if you do do it and, although a vanishingly small possibility, it subsequently turns out to be wrong or misleading, perhaps not providing a strong enough warning about the need to upgrade for instance, then as the seller you might be in line for a fraud charge because you benefited from the sale and this sale relied on information you provided. I suspect this is very unlikely unless something serious goes wrong.

[Jeremy Harris]

Good point, Mike, but I've already done all the work needed to produce an EICR anyway; I did it a few days ago after the surveyor flagged up the old fuse box to me and said he'd be putting it in his report with a recommendation to the buyer to get it tested, and I told the buyer the results.  The buyer said they'd been advised to get an EICR by their surveyor, I pointed out that it would be more cost effective to just get the fuse box replaced. 

 

The only real room for minor error between my test result and someone else's when they fit the new CU, would be the individual loop resistance measurements, but I doubt there would be more than a small fraction of an ohm difference between the measurements I made and those made by whoever fits the new CU, as nothing will have changed.  The biggest likely error will be if the chap doing the measurements when he fits the CU doesn't null his leads (I'm in the habit of not relying on the stored value but nulling them every time I use them for something like this, but I've seen people who just rely on the stored compensation value).  Even then, they will all be well inside the allowable limit, as it's a small house yet with two lighting and two power ring finals, so the rings aren't very long nor do they have lots of stuff on them.  The earth system is TN-C-S and is OK.

 

 

[MrMagic]

Just a thought (and not a spark so take this with a bucket of salt)... but you mention above it's an old fuse box - if this was fitted correctly and compliant with the regulations at the time of fitting then I believe it's a C3 - Improvement Needed.

 

I'm guessing you've probably got an old Wylex brown board or something along those lines, fuses only, no RCDs - provided theres no exposed live parts and the board isn't damaged in any way then thats fine, theres no immediate danger to life and no danger to life after a sequence of events (such as a loose face plate or loose wiring).

 

Useful reading (few years out of date now) - https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/electrical-professionals/best-practice-guides/ - Guides 1 & 4

Discussion - https://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=205&threadid=51909

 

Irrespective of all the above - the EICR coding system is open to huge interpretation, at the end of the day it comes down to you as the inspector, your experience and competency - make the decision to mark it as you deem fit and sleep well at night.

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by MrMagic

[ProDave]

The worst thing they did was remove the C4 clasification "conforms to earlier edition of wiring regs"

[Jeremy Harris]

Thanks, it's a Wylex silver metal fuse box, with a mix of wired fuses and one 45A cartridge fuse for the cooker radial, c.1986, so 15th Ed, as that's when the house was built.  My qualifications date back to the 15th Ed, and it's similar to the board I fitted when we rewired my late Mother's house years ago, probably the last whole house rewire I did.

 

I agree it's every bit as safe now as it was when it was installed; all the wiring is in good condition, there are no dodgy mods, the only two changes seem to be an outside light that was fitted and the wiring bodged in the new switch (something now corrected, but it only showed up when I tested the loop resistance on that ring) and the old 16A immersion heater radial now feeds a single socket, as the hot cylinder was removed and I swapped the FCU for a socket.

 

I think I'd agree with Dave and give it an unsatisfactory, because there's no RCD at all.  The house is PME, so there wasn't a requirement for an RCD when it was built.  As you say, though, there is a lot of room for interpretation with EICR coding, and it's quite possible that it could be C3.

 

42 minutes ago, ProDave said:

The worst thing they did was remove the C4 clasification "conforms to earlier edition of wiring regs"

 

I couldn't agree more.  It puts electricians in a difficult position, as there now seems to be an assumption that things should be looked at in a more critical light, with respect to the current regs, rather than those that applied at the time the installation was fitted. 

[ProDave]

This thread highlights the very worst of selling houses, surveyors and solicitors. 

 

In this case the wiring is in good order, wired to an compliant with the standards in force at the time and time still just as safe.

 

In the real world it would now benefit from an upgrade to a new consumer unit to give the better protection of rcd's and mcb's

 

But surveyors like to get their teeth into this sort of stuff and make a mountain out of a mole hill and scare the poor buyer into thinking the house is about to burn down and needs an immediate full rewire.  And sadly most buyers just believe the tosh they dish out.

 

@JSHarris since you know a local chap, can you not give him your test results and pay him to issue an EICR in his name with those findings?

[Jeremy Harris]

12 minutes ago, ProDave said:

 

@JSHarris since you know a local chap, can you not give him your test results and pay him to issue an EICR in his name with those findings?

 

Yes, but to be honest he's young, competent and dead honest, and I know he'd not want to work the system like that, but would want to check for himself, even if he does trust me.  If push comes to shove and it really does look like it's going to be a problem, then I'll just buy a new CU and get him to wire and test it.  I'm pretty sure I'd get "mates rates", so at most the whole job isn't likely to cost me more than £150.  It may well be worth that just to stop all this faffing about.

[jack]

Jeremy, I don't follow why you're willing to prepare an EICR and/or pay money to upgrade a CU on a house you're selling. If I were a potential buyer who didn't know you, I'd consider this behaviour concerning, as it definitely isn't what civvies do in this scenario. At best it looks like you're desperate to sell, which might encourage a late, lower offer.

 

Offering to prepare your own EICR, in particular, is something I'd counsel against. Again, to someone who doesn't know you, I think this would look highly suspicious, plus I don't think you want to be the one in court arguing about your competent person status in the (admittedly highly unlikely) event something goes wrong.

 

If they want an EICR, why not just tell them that you're happy to give someone access to prepare one? That's what people without your background (ie, most of us) would do. If they're committed to buying and this is just a formality, offer to allow them to upgrade the CU at the same time to reduce costs. To me, that sounds like the behaviour of someone confident that there're no problems with the wiring (and perhaps you can then give them your background and explain to them why you know it'll all pass except for the CU).

 

Just my thoughts - I appreciate that others will have a different view.

[Stones]

I would agree with Jack, let them have access to get a check done if they wish (and if required, agree to deduct the cost of replacing the CU off the sale price).  Would a check throw up the issue of the bathroom cupboard socket issue previously discussed?

[Jeremy Harris]

I agree, @jack, I just have a very strong DIY tendency and have been wound up a bit by the surveyor (who was quite open to me about the wiring as he was doing the survey).

 

@Stones, Re: the socket in the cupboard, it's not there - I took it out before the surveyor came around, just to be on the safe side, and there's no indication it's ever been there now.  I needn't have bothered as he didn't look in that cupboard, anyway!

[Onoff]

A couple of points:

 

Don't forget that since the 15th testing requirements have changed. 

 

It is arguable that having done the 15th you are not "up to date" and that could bring competency into question.

 

Having done just the 15th, 16th or 17th (even the 18th) "book" exam isn't the same as having completed and apprenticeship or a recognised electro technical course with certification at the end of it.

 

I think PL and PI insurance could be an issue too. In order to test you need to disconnect/reconnect various cabling. If you inadvertently leave something loose...

 

Your kit should be calibrated to do this work.

 

You have to put down the serial number of the test kit down on the schedules of test. If the EICR date predates the calibration date again a potential issue.

 

On similar lines of you ask A N Other scheme member to take on your schedule of tests and sign off as his own why would be be using your test kit? OK, you could get his test kit serial numbers but it all gets a bit cloak and dagger.

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, Onoff said:

A couple of points:

 

Don't forget that since the 15th testing requirements have changed. 

 

It is arguable that having done the 15th you are not "up to date" and that could bring competency into question.

 

Having done just the 15th, 16th or 17th (even the 18th) "book" exam isn't the same as having completed and apprenticeship or a recognised electro technical course with certification at the end of it.

 

I think PL and PI insurance could be an issue too. In order to test you need to disconnect/reconnect various cabling. If you inadvertently leave something loose...

 

Your kit should be calibrated to do this work.

 

You have to put down the serial number of the test kit down on the schedules of test. If the EICR date predates the calibration date again a potential issue.

 

On similar lines of you ask A N Other scheme member to take on your schedule of tests and sign off as his own why would be be using your test kit? OK, you could get his test kit serial numbers but it all gets a bit cloak and dagger.

 

 

Good points, but I did used to teach apprentice electricians, so have at least got those qualifications and experience, plus was certificated at the time, as it was a requirement that I had to be in order to be a part time college lecturer.  I'm aware of the gulf between "paper knowledge" and "practical knowledge", which was part of the prompt for this thread. 

 

Insurance is certainly something I'd missed, and probably stops this endeavour in it's tracks, so thanks for that reminder.

 

I've just had my tester calibrated, so that's OK.

 

As in the post above, I'd not ask another scheme member to use my schedule of tests and measurements, as it's an unreasonable thing to ask and it just wouldn't be fair on them to ask the question.

 

I think my main point here is that Part P has nothing to do with being considered a competent person to undertake an EICR, as it's not a Part P notifiable job, AFAICS.  I think the main cock-up with Part P was making it a building regulation, so separating it out from the normal competency requirements for electrical work.  I'm sure there are still electricians around who don't have a Part P accreditation and who have the same qualifications and certification that I hold, dating back to the 15th Ed.  The onus is on them to stay competent, but as long as they don't undertake Part P work they can carry on doing any other electrical installation work, AFAICS.

[Ferdinand]

8 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

Insurance is certainly something I'd missed, and probably stops this endeavour in it's tracks, so thanks for that reminder.

 

If you look at someone like Hiscox, £1m public liability insurance could be down to something under £25 paid month by month or a couple of hundred a year.

 

That is a figure for insurance for a handyman business taken out in the last 3 months.

 

F

[Ferdinand]

16 hours ago, JSHarris said:

A far a I can see there isn't a requirement for Part P accreditation to do an EICR, only a need to be competent.  It' not a notifiable job to building control under Part P, as far a I can see, so I can't see why I can't do one, can anyone else?

 

Accepted - and that causes an unfortunate confusion with the regulated term "Competent Person" used for somebody qualified to do specified tasks in each trade.

 

15 hours ago, ProDave said:

The EIC for a rental just goes into the tenants information pack. I suspect, along with things like the EPC certificate, nobody ever reads it.

 

I think this is not quite the fully nuanced picture for rentals. And the whole thing is a festival of grey areas and weasel words.

 

The legal reqiuirement for electricals in a rental, which I think is the underlying standard everywhere in the UK except possibly Wales where I have not checked, is that they are required to be safe and fit for purpose (or words to that effect), so in an enforcement situation there is professional judgement involved and sometimes the Council assessment staff may not be competent persons, never mind Competent Persons.

 

The status of an EIC for a rental is that it is regarded as "best practice" to have one every 5 years, and would have significant weight when such a judgement were made. In practice it is all so complicated that it is far easier to invest in one rather than mud-wrestle the bureaucrat-monster, even if your properties are electrically safe. If a decision goes against you the consequences are draconian, and can be enforced eg in England as civil fines up to £30k by the Council on its own, which are very difficult to challenge.

 

However (for completeness) an EIC every 5 years is mandatory in law for certain larger Houses in Multiple Occupation. In England they will be mandatory for Private Rentals before long anyway. I support that for EICs, though you can get me to be very rude indeed about some of the garbage being imposed via Goldplated  LL Licensing schemes.

 

But an EIC every 5 years is also identified as an (alleged) 'mandatory' requirement in many regulatory situations. One such is the Scottish Government Repairing Standard for Rental Property - link to electrical provisions, and enforcement can be via the First Tier Tribunal for the "duty to carry out Electrical Safety Inspections". Duty of care is a nebulous Common Law ( I think) concept. That is a bugger to disprove without an EIC, and he SG are trying to pretend that the EIC is in fact mandatory.

 

In England, every Landlord Licensing Scheme that I have seen has such a provision, along the lines of say Nottingham's Selective Scheme for example. This is a set of words designed to impose a requirement that goes beyond the law.

 

Quote

You are required to ensure the electrical system in the house is safe. This can be done by providing a valid, in date, satisfactory report.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Ferdinand

[Jeremy Harris]

OK, an update.  I have done an EICR, probably gone a bit OTT, and have found nothing of note, IF the installation is assumed to have been in accordance with the 15th Ed, the regs that were in force when the house was built, or the 16th Ed, the regs that were in force for the only modification I could find to the installation (as it now stands, with the electric shower wiring and the rogue socket in the bathroom cupboard removed). 

 

Everything checks out, from the Ze at the fuse box, through to the loop checks on all the rings, and the limited visual checks I could do (really just the exposed clipped to timber cables in the loft) all checked out OK.  Zs at the furthest point in each ring was also OK, and all outlets checked out OK.  With no RCDs there's not much else I could check.

 

Got a call early today from a big local electrical company, asking if they could book a date to perform an EICR for the buyer.  I've no problem with this at all, although my personal view is that the buyer would be better off just getting a new CU fitted, as that would seem to be much better value.

 

Now comes the fun bit.  I was over at the new house later, so decided to ring this company and ask them if they could give me a quote for an EICR, using our new address and not giving my name (so they were getting a call from a different number than they had called earlier and a different address).  I will admit to playing a bit dumb, pretending I was worried about the "electrics" and wanted to make sure they were safe.  Guess what they charge for an EICR on a house described as our old house?  £320 + VAT, and they gave a me a hard sell that the installation was so old (1986) that it would probably need additional work, and that I'd be wise to budget for around £1000 for all the work that may arise from the inspection (that's four ring finals and two radials, in total).

 

Now I'm not the fastest worker on the planet, it's a while since I've done an EICR and I'm not 100% familiar with my (newly calibrated) multitester, that I've only owned since the start of our build (when I still thought that I could do the wiring and get building control to do the sign off).  It took me just over 4 hours to do all the tests, including checking every single outlet, including all the ceiling lighting fittings, even though that probably wasn't strictly necessary, I reckon just doing a full test on those furthest from the fuse box, plus a quick test of the others, plus loop resistance checks on all the rings (already done, when I sorted the outside light switch fault) was all I really needed to do.  I've no doubt that someone that did this for a living would be a lot quicker than I was, probably well under 3 hours at a guess, although I did spend a short time removing and tidying up redundant cable in the loft that had been left in place (anyone want around 10m of 10mm² T&E in the old colours?).

 

Now, I reckon charging £100 an hour for what is, in essence, a button-pushing exercise. is a rip-off; I'm just thankful it's not me being ripped off, but I don't like the way that this firm was, apparently, recommended by the surveyor (who, I discovered, charged the buyer £780 +VAT for a couple of hours work), it smacks to me of a nice little rip-off system they've got between them.

 

I'm tempted to get my friendly Part P chap to come over and do another EICR, which I know he'd do at "mates rates", bear the cost myself and get that independently sent to the buyer, just to try and stop her being ripped off.  I'm annoyed at the way these people work, more than anything else.  I also suspect that they are taking advantage of the buyer being a woman who has very little knowledge of buildings, electrical installations etc, and seems very trusting of "professionals".

 

TBH, right now I'm just pissed off at someone being taken advantage of.  I know it's nothing to do with me, and the buyer can do what the heck she likes, but it just bugs me to see people being taken advantage of.

[ProDave]

Yes I fear this guy is going to suggest a full rewire costing over £1000 and scare your buyers.  And yes I totally agree that £320 would be better spent on a new CU.

 

Getting your own EICR might be a good move, so when they come back and say we want £1000 off the price, you can counter that and say there is nothing wrong apart from wanting a new CU.

 

It all depends how much grief you want along the way.

[Jeremy Harris]

It really does piss me off the way these people work.  I'll give my mate a call on Monday and see if he can fit in a quick EICR, before I agree a date with the buyer's people.  With luck I can get the EICR to the buyer before her people have done the work, so she may feel able to cancel. I think the way to do it is to get the EICR sent through our solicitors to hers, so it forms a key part of the sales documentation, as that would pretty much head off any attempt to try and adjust the price down.

 

What really annoys me is that I can get the whole fuse box replaced for an new CU, with much the same testing as she'd get from an EICR, for at least £100 less than she's been quoted for just an EICR.