Hi all, a client of mine has an insurance policy that has the following wording on it.....

'Electrical Circuit Maintenance Condition
It is a condition precedent to liability that fixed electrical installations are tested by an NICEIC (National
Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting) or ECA (Electrical Contractors Association)
registered contractor at least once in every 3 year period and an IEE test certificate is issued showing no
deviations.'

So its a PIR and the report speaks for itself but its not a test certificate as such. Also if the report highlights 'deviations'...the client still seems to have a problem with his insurance. He could subsequently get any required work undertaken but still had a report that showed deviations. Or is it a case of PIR x2 so that the last PIR contains no deviations? Also the insurance should refer to IET not IEE? Thanks

So would damage, deterioration, defects, dangerous conditions and non-comliances be acceptable?

I think any codes 1-4 would be deviations.

A glance on the spine of the latest addition of BS7671 will help answer your question about IET vs IEE.

Also codes 1 to 4 are old speak they are now Codes C1 to C3.

No doubt the company carrying out the remedial work following the PIR/EICR will produce the appropriate documentation to show what work they have done?

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

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

This kind of wording is quite common. However, an installation with nothing which could be considered any kind of deviation from the strictest interpretation of BS7671 would be very unusual, and of course the inspector has fairly wide powers of interpretation which could always be disputed by the insurer. So this policy really says that the insurer may accept liability on his own terms, which suits him well, and changing these always results in the courts becoming involved. So the EICR allegedly showing no deviations needs to be issued, usually by a third party which has a vested interest in finding as many "defects" as possible in the hope that they may be employed to "fix" them!
It is time that this situation were rectified, in that such inspections could only be carried out by contractors who only carried out inspection, and who were qualified to make the necessary judgement as to the safety of the installation, in the manner used for steam and pressure systems. This would be to the advantage of both insurers and clients, and overall safety would probably be improved with a reduction in costs to both parties. It is interesting to consider the ongoing cost of inspection every 3 years, and whether this could be considered cost effective or simply an expensive risk reducing measure at the clients expense.

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

Sounds like a policy condition written by someone with some knowledge but not enough knowledge.

They should have updated to EICR; noted the change of IEE to IET; they should realise that it is a report not a certificate and they should realise that NAPIT exists.

Is that really what you want - by reversing what you suggest would then an inspector be disbarred from installation in the same way you want installers disbarred from inspection. Is that good for anyone - would the passing of time result in an even further downskilling as no single person would get a broad well rounded experiential learning experience ?

Effectively you want to decouple the whole design, installation and inspection tripartite - how can that possibly be good for the industry sector and clients generally ?

Steam and pressure systems have the potential for multiple casualties and significant second tier implications (disproportionate collapse etc) - electrical systems are nowhere near that kind of hazard class - best not to over egg the pudding if, as an industry sector, we want at least some vestige of credibility left us - EAWR is quite clear about the obligations - as are the pressure regs - and there is a significant difference

As someone on here once said when discussing gold clubs - be careful what you wish for

Regards

OMS

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

An EIC might show departures, and a PIR/EICR might show oberservations/recommendations/classification codes, but neither show deviations!

As you would expect I am with Mr Zawadi. There is an obvious conflict of interest with a company carrying out I&T who also engage in installation work.

As for the insurance company knowing that NAPIT exists surely it is for NAPIT to actively engage in promoting their existence to insurance companies?

My narrow view is that the IET should maintain a register (The Gold register) of qualified members who engage in I&T. The IET have a code of ethics for their members unlike the clubs who permit their approved contractors to send out anyone to carry out I&T. I don't believe any of the clubs even insist as an absolute requirement for the QS to have a specific qualification in inspection and testing.

The clubs require contractors to maintain a register of test equipment, calibration and monthly checks but no records are required of persons sent out to I&T. How daft is that?

You only have to read the comments of the coroner and the expert witness in the Emma Shaw case as a shining example of the common practice of Approved Contractors sending out unqualified persons to I&T and then for a QS to countersign an EIC with multiple obvious deficiencies. The whole industry and the clubs know about the poor standards and mal practice but money takes priority over standards!

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

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

More probable at the taxpayers' expense!

Regards

3 year inspection interval.........what type of building is it?

-------------------------
----------------------------------------
Lack of planning on your part doesn't make it an emergency on mine....

Every man has to know his limitations- Dirty Harry

No sense in continuing to milk this, nobody's listening. Little point in attempting to take the cream from the top, there's not enough to go round in any case. More effort should be made to prevent the product going sour, by improving sampling techniques.

Regards

They don't even have a register of electrical engineers John - only those who choose to join IET !!

So a members register has what value exactly ? - or does it have more or less value than one say operated by CIBSE or similar

we have plenty of ways to define competence - there is no real reason why you need to be a member of anything to undertake your profession (in a general sphere of operations)

regards

OMS

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

Thats just what the world and the industry needs at the moment, another super-hero like a golden caped crusader flying around carrying out inspections just for the standards and not for money.

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!"
-------------------------

"A glance on the spine of the latest addition of BS7671 will help answer your question about IET vs IEE. "

I hadn`t noticed that, just the change to IET on the cover.

You must have the eyes of a Fleetwood Prawn Sir.

I wonder why they did that? very confusing and there was little old me always referring to it as IEE Wiring Regulations until they`d changed the title even though they`d changed their name. I`m not as clever as I thought I was!

-------------------------
Regards,
Ebee (M I S P N)

Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik

I remember sitting in the audience at an NICEIC event at the MK offices in Essex as the 17th Edition was about to hit the streets. The talk in the audience was one of gloom, it will never work, it's just a scam, I will go out of business, the sun will not come up tomorrow etc etc. Does that sound familiar?

The industry moans about standards of 5 day wonders and others but steadfastly resists regulation and standards, a bit like bankers who complain about regulation.

Have a look at the coroner's comments in the Emma Shaw case.

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

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

Not that long ago, (last year) seen two big electrical vans sitting side by side in one of those big shopping retail parks, men talking to one another out the windows, they had all the names of the clubs printed on the vans. Being noisy walked past close, and said , this is good news, big electrical job on, very scarce nowadays. Well it turned out that's what they were talking about, they had no work and were all piled into one small job at a big DIY outlet. On leaving, I said what you think of the IET amendment, what is that they said never heard of it. I said you know the IEE is now the IET and amendment 1 is out. None of them had known of the IET or amendment 1, but did know about the IEE.

Just goes to show it is just a small percentage of the thousands working in the electrical trade that know about these things, the rest don't give a dam or care.

The HMRC allow you to claim expenses, for the cost of membership of a professional body. That is the first thing an accountant will ask you, to make you think he is doing you a favour. Does the same apply to a member of any of the private clubs or even the government gold club part P, is it allowed to claim this cost as an expense in your tax.

The point I am making, is that everyone seems happy with the (severe) conflict of interest. The general standard of inspections (new installations included) is poor, and the contractors concerned don't care because there is little real risk to themselves. I have two EICRs in front of me on the same installation, and they are sufficiently different for real concern. Both miss a C1 defect completely (live exposed terminals!) because their inspections are very careless, and they are lucky that a fatal accident did not occur to an old lady. They give widely differing test results, do not identify the circuit topologies correctly, miss significant C2 defects, have "defects" identified that are perfectly permissible, and come with repair quotes that are capable of paying the sparky at least £150k a year. Both are from NIC club members. My suggestion is that if you inspect an installation you do not repair it, not that a contractor be prevented from doing either job, so no reduction of real scope. I have great respect for John P sticking to his convictions, there is easier money to be earned than inspection and test, and keeping the process both accurate and honest is in everybody's interest.

Perhaps the IET should take more notice of standards, after all producing the regulations is only part of the job, they are useless unless they are implemented. We should all give this a push with the IET!

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

The IET will not do anything that's seen as adding to the burden of UK PLC - without exception in my opinion.

You guys want Utopia when the clients wants cheap minimal compliance - and when they get it, they are happy. Do you honestly think they will relish paying for someone who is going to do a full on, honest and unbiased report that costs more - not a cat in hells chance, trust me.

regards

OMS

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