Minor works cert replacement boilers?

[JohnW2]

In response to your later questions in which you for some reason extend it to include changing a lamp bulb - I asked the question about where do you think the electricians responsibility ends - but you are now saying he is probably not an electrician.

It's not a question of "my now saying something". The OP, whose name is "Livesgas" asked

"Replace existing combi boiler, connect new flex to existing fused spur or socket. No alteration to existing circuit. Is a minor works cert and part p reg required?

... which I took to indicate that he probably was not an electrician. You may disagree.

That doesn't make any difference - if the person who connects the boiler to the power supply hasn't tested that supply first then more fool him - because he will be the one who ends up paying for a new boiler board if the circuit has been wired incorrectly.

Fair enough - although I would probably struggle to think of ways in which the incorrect wiring of the circuit would result in failure of the boiler's electronics. However, as I asked (because I'm genuinely trying to discover the answer), how far should one take this? For example, many retailers of domestic appliances (like Argos, Currys etc.) offer, for a price, a 'deliver and install' option, even for appliances (plug-in ovens, microwaves etc.) for which the only 'installation' required is to put it in the right place and plug it in to an existing socket (they usually say how close the socket has to be!). When they provide such a service, should they 'test the circuit' before plugging the appliance in?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I think you really have a good point there which is why I tried to find the case again.

I'm pleased to hear that someone is taking me seriously!

But my point is the minor works certificate protects us, and when things go wrong to be able to say here are the readings I got which lead me to believe there was nothing wrong, would likely give one a get out of jail free card, even when the fault is really down to you. Most customers will not keep it anyway but it's you not them it protects.

It rather amuses me to see the amount of faith that people (be they tradesmen or their customers) put in these pieces of paper, completed by the trademan who undertook the work. It seems a bit like a school pupil marking his own exams or writing his own Report! Would not a 'cowboy' who was good at being a cowboy produce such a piece of paper, possibly full of lies and fictitious test results, when they had done the job badly and undertaken no testing? I would not have expected a court (for example) to put much weight on 'evidence of innocence' which consisted of something written by the allegedly dodgy defendant!

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

For example, many retailers of domestic appliances (like Argos, Currys etc.) offer, for a price, a 'deliver and install' option, even for appliances (plug-in ovens, microwaves etc.) for which the only 'installation' required is to put it in the right place and plug it in to an existing socket (they usually say how close the socket has to be!). When they provide such a service, should they 'test the circuit' before plugging the appliance in?

I cannot answer for the companies or the services you outline above, but based on my personal experience when my Hotpoint washing machine was repaired - I received what I would describe as a MW report outlining the Earth Loop Impedance value of the circuit and the IR value of the washing machine. I think, because I cannot find the report now, there were also earth leakage tests.
The repaired washing machine broke again after 95 days (5 days over the repair guarantee) - moved to a Miele washing machine shortly afterwards - bliss.

 

[JohnW2]

I cannot answer for the companies or the services you outline above, but based on my personal experience when my Hotpoint washing machine was repaired - I received what I would describe as a MW report outlining the Earth Loop Impedance value of the circuit and the IR value of the washing machine. I think, because I cannot find the report now, there were also earth leakage tests.

I suppose it's a bit different when undertaking repairs (which, by definition, means that there are faults of one sort or another afoot) but, anyway, FWIW, I've had washing machines repaired many a time over the years (including Hotpoints repaired by Hotpoint technicians) and have certainly never received any paperwork mentioning tests of the electrical circuit, nor have I ever seen them testing the electrical circuit ... so experiences obviously differ.

I suppose one can always argue that testing any circuit in any electrical installation, whenever the opportunity arises, is not a bad thing to do (daily EICRs would, I suppose, be the ideal ) but, beyond that general argument, I see no obvious reason why the man who has come to replace a WM drum bearing or broken door catch really needs to test the electrical circuit supplying it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[riveralt]

I suppose it's a bit different when undertaking repairs (which, by definition, means that there are faults of one sort or another afoot) but, anyway, FWIW, I've had washing machines repaired many a time over the years (including Hotpoints repaired by Hotpoint technicians) and have certainly never received any paperwork mentioning tests of the electrical circuit, nor have I ever seen them testing the electrical circuit ... so experiences obviously differ.

I found the print out:
View media item 66956

 

[JohnW2]

I found the print out: ...

Very interesting, and a totally 'non-electrical' job at that. I've certainly never seen one with electrical test results on like that - but I suppose it has been a year or three since I last had a WM repair.

What is the 21Ω (if that's what is says) "Earth continuity" all about?

Kind Regards

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think it's .21 although it should have a 0 first so maybe wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

I think it's .21 although it should have a 0 first so maybe wrong.

Ah, yes, you're probably right - but, as you say, the absence of the '0' is distinctly naughty - that's the stuff that plane crashes and medical disasters are made of (per my recent comments in another thread about digital displays!)!

... so what do you think it refers to - R2 ?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

... so what do you think it refers to - R2 ?

I would think so.

I presume that the Zs of '<1' is just from a socket tester.

 

[JohnW2]

... so what do you think it refers to - R2 ?

I would think so. I presume that the Zs of '<1' is just from a socket tester.

Yes, that's what I presumed. It seemed a bit odd to me that they'd do that (a socket-tester Zs) and then do (just) an R2.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

if the person who connects the boiler to the power supply hasn't tested that supply first then more fool him - because he will be the one who ends up paying for a new boiler board if the circuit has been wired incorrectly.

Would you say that the same holds true if the old boiler had been plugged into a socket and the boiler installer fitted a flex and plug to the new one and plugged it in?

 

[JohnW2]

if the person who connects the boiler to the power supply hasn't tested that supply first then more fool him - because he will be the one who ends up paying for a new boiler board if the circuit has been wired incorrectly.

Would you say that the same holds true if the old boiler had been plugged into a socket and the boiler installer fitted a flex and plug to the new one and plugged it in?

I would imagine that his answer will be 'yes'. Riveralt's response to me which you have quoted above followed my question in post #3 of this thread which was essentially the same as yours:

Does connecting a new appliance to an existing FCU or socket (particularly if 'connecting to socket' means 'plug it in'!) really require a MWC? Is it (particularly 'plug it in'!) materially different from, say, 'changing a lght bulb'?

...closely followed by:

Does that even include the situation in which you plug it in to an existing socket?

... which is about when riveralt 'engaged' me!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have read the replies and also looked again at original question again. So what does the team think? I would say taking one of these

as the standard test device used by non electrical personnel it would need a form which the results would match the form.

So the Part 3 Essential tests would miss out Insulation resistance as likely the installer would not have a meter to measure it and also RCD would be yes or no and earth fault loop impedance would have a selection of 6 tick boxes which line up with the 6 readings the plug in device will show.

So not a proper minor works certificate but some printed form showing tests have been made.

The BS7671 (17th Edition wire regs) is not law although it can be used in a court of law it is satisfying the HSE which is the real question when something goes wrong.

As stated we can when we forget to make out a Minor works guess what the likely results would be and fill in a certificate without testing however when the HSE visited me they did not only want to see records of what was done with the item in question but also all other records and so although one can do an odd one you would still have to in the main actually test for there to be a data base of tests which would satisfy.

I know one firm I worked for end of each week put all test results on a CD so that there could be no claim that they had been altered.

I found a foreman copying last years results and re-entering with current years date with slight alterations he would send some one out to test some items so there would be a few changes but yes it would have been hard to show he was cheating.

With this in mind buying expensive equipment to correctly fill in a minor works certificate is really going OTT but even a note book with readings taken on each install would likely satisfy the HSE. Although I say it's to the courts to decide it would first be down the HSE to if it came to court so really you need enough to satisfy the HSE and I found them very reasonable so that's why I would say plug in tester and note book with readings would likely satisfy them.

So what does the team think?

 

[riveralt]

I presume that the Zs of '<1' is just from a socket tester.

No the tester and printer formed part of the same unit and sat in their own large plastic case which seemed to incorporate the battery and holders for the cables.
Almost like a Portable Appliance Tester plus.
The ELI was conducted with the tester plugged into the same household socket used by the washing machine. I assume the machine was set up to test socket circuits and simply records a pass if the result is less than one.
The other two tests were done with the washing machine plugged into the tester.
The 'Earth Continuity' test is 0.21 - it is more clear on the original.

 

[JohnW2]

I presume that the Zs of '<1' is just from a socket tester.

No the tester and printer formed part of the same unit and sat in their own large plastic case which seemed to incorporate the battery and holders for the cables. Almost like a Portable Appliance Tester plus.
The ELI was conducted with the tester plugged into the same household socket used by the washing machine. I assume the machine was set up to test socket circuits and simply records a pass if the result is less than one.

Fair enough - but that seems a little odd given that they have given actual figues for everything else

The other two tests were done with the washing machine plugged into the tester. The 'Earth Continuity' test is 0.21 - it is more clear on the original.

So the IR and 'Earth Continuity' related just to the machine? In that case, if 'Earth Continuity' means the resistance from the earth pin of the plug to the metalwork of the machine, is not 0.21&#937; much higher than one would expect? After all, that would mean that the machine's flex was adding at least 21% more to the circuit's measured EFLI.

Kind Regards, John