I've been sent a couple of EICR's by customers wanting a quote for the remedial work. Both are from the same company (small one). But the EICR constists of 1 typed page: Obs and recommendations with codes. That's it.

I asked one of my customers obtain the rest of the report, but she said - they don't issue one if the installation is unsatisfactory

This can't be right can it? The customer has paid for it surely? Is it a way of withholding info so they can try and get the remedial work??

What was the contractual agreement between the customer and the company?


It could easily be seen as that. It also makes the result harder to challenge without the additional information, or perhaps the measurements were never carried out . . .


Regards,

Alan.

What was the basis of the request for the inspection and the response, anything in writing? If the work was carried out by a registered contractor, which I doubt; a complaint could be made by the householder to their registrant, failing this a complaint to trading standards.

Regards

This kind of thing really gives the industry a bad name, the company are taking advantage of the clients lack of knowledge as most just ask for a test & inspect so once thats done??
Is this company a member of a recognised scheme? NICEIC? as they "should" take a very dim view.
After that it would get into what a reasnable person would expect etc etc from trading standards but the customer would win. (I think)

Thanks for replies.

The company is NICEIC (DI) as am I. I expect the contract was a verbal (or possibly written) one to carry out an EICR. In my mind this means that you get an EICR not just a one page typed summary of the recommendations. At least this is what I would do on the basis of the same written or verbal contract.

Looking at the info I've got, it looks not too bad - one report flagged up low IR readings on one circuit, so it looks like tests were carried out - but no info on the circuit or the results which makes it harder for me to price (perhaps this is the idea!)

Not sure about taking it further - one customer seems not bothered - after all it's only after I pointed it out that she knows about it!

I am looking at a cert at the moment which I wish the largish contractor had kept under wraps. 0.0007 PFC? etc etc

In that case, I would expect the "full set" of EICR forms in purple (if they are registered to carry out EICRs) or green if they are not.


This is half the problem, as I alluded to in my post about Part P. While nobody complains using the correct procedure, nothing will ever get changed.

Regards,

Alan.

You should check with the NICEIC, if they're registered for inspection and testing!


That's only as good as the paper it isn't written on! Time to get a refund I think!

Regards

thanks again. I guess it's up to the customer to make a complaint as the contract is between them - but I'll push the case

You don't need to be registered with anyone to do EICRS - but then you can't use NIC (or whoever)'s logo on it and it has to be green - this is what I do as I ain't forking out even more money to NIC than I already do....

There has got to be a logic problem here somewhere, the customer gives you a list of work to be done, and asks for an estimate, simples, and you go off on one after the previous contractor, NIC, T/S etc; strange way to do business.

regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------

Brucie

"I asked one of my customers obtain the rest of the report, but she said - they don't issue one if the installation is unsatisfactory ".

That's a good one I have not heard that one before. I would have thought it was more important to issue a full EICR for an unsatisfactory installation than a satisfactory one.The company sounds like a bunch of sharks to me. I bet every installation they I&T is unsatisfactory and their motivation is to generate remedial work for themselves.

I would be very wary of quoting for jobs based on incomplete information from a company that behaves that way.

-------------------------
John Peckham

http://www.astutetechnicalservices.co.uk/

John - yes, I thought it was a pretty convincing 'answer'!

I generally always retest (and charge for it) anyway as I don't trust anyone else's results (Cynical, moi??)

RnR - not really, as it would be pretty useful to see the EICR in order to properly quote for the work and see if some of the codings are a little over of the top (as they often are - no grommets - code 2 etc etc). Plus the fact that why should customers not get what they paid for?

Not really. It actually makes good business sense. If others could be bothered to raise these issues, and the customers willing to use the appropriate complaints procedure, then the poorly performing companys would be removed from the competent person's schemes they were members of. It then follows that the companys that will be left will be the trustworthy ones.

Regards,

Alan.

Really Alan - meanwhile in the hard commercial world, any investigation would reveal a minor clerical oversight by the "girl in the office who sends out the forms" and the investigation would recommend a minor rebuke and the fees would keep rolling in

As Bruciebonus so eloquently put it:



Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

LOL Must be that island air, since the membership peak of 07/08 the numbers have been rapidly declining in the CPS's and the numbers kicked out for being naughty boys you could probably count on one hand but lets stretch it slightly to two hands, so you have to realise that they are commercial organisations who rely heavily on a membership fee so it is in their best interests to be flexible in their approach to the 'naughty's', re-educate, retrain rather than losing a valueable income.

Your schemes have always been active in more regulation, licencing, certification etc; and their latest attempt at getting you all UKAS accredited has also failed, none of this is on the table as far as the UK government is concerned mainly because it breaches EU law.

Before you mention France, Germany, Italy etc; they inherited these various construction licencing schemes and under EU law relating to 'Barrier to Trade' they have to give them up and come up with an alternative system similar to ours in around 2016.

regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------

This really says a lot about the industry, the only ones who care about procedural correctness, scheme membership, record keeping, qualifications, experience and knowledge (of which there needs to a lot), correct testing procedures and interperation, are the sparks and the money making scheme providers to justify there existence. In reality all anyone outside the industry cares about Pass or fail and price...Thats it!

We have a big scheme provider that thinks it makes up the regs, then we have government legalisation thats promotes Part P meaning kitchen fitters are now electricians after a three day course. Customers only ask if your part P, not about experience and qualification, they are now apparently, irrelevant.

This post highlights the complete lack of consistency in this industry. eg a Spark with 20 years experience person charges 300 for an eicr, spends most of the day carefully checking the install, and another does an inspection from the van and charges £90.00. Each spark gives the customer a pass or fail result, i wonder which the customer will go for? The lack of consistency is a problem.

-------------------------
www.icertifi.co.uk
BS 7671 electrical certificates on your iPhone/iPod

www.tapengines.com
Electrical apps for electricians and engineers on iPhone & iPad

That is not my understanding of the scenario for the scheme providers that operate here. I cannot of course speak for the UK, where the DNOs appear to take less of an active interest in what is being connected to their network and by who.

Regards,

Alan.

Ohh I agree totally Alan - sadly, we don't have the rigour applied by your government - it appears that UK DNO's don't give a monkeys about the LV network and are fixated on charging just about anything they can get away with for simple works that they should be doing at thier cost as good maintenance for example - and scheme providers really aren't in the habit of booting anyone out (unless you don't pay the subs of course)

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option

Of course one could observe that they have failed contractually, as their response from a EICR is clearly set out in BS7671. The full details required are in appendix 6 (green), and specified by 631.2. "Based on the model of" clearly means very similar to, not some short list of defects. If you care to sue I may be able to help!

-------------------------
David
CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question!

sounds like another "drive by" inspection by someone who doesnt know how to test.