Except, of course, for the minor matter that he knows such an EIC would be fraudulent.
Sponsored Links
Really?
You are really not sure how kosher it is for someone to lie on an official document?
Can't speak to the actual legality - I suspect that anyone would have a hard time proving that you'd done anything unlawful. But you know it would be wrong, and morally you would not be above board.
It's none.
There are no formal qualifications needed to sign any part of an EIC, or an EICR. In the case of a council looking for such certificates or reports as proof that the electrical work complies with Part P they may well insist on evidence of competence via qualifications and membership of a Competent Person scheme, but legally your Auntie Flo could sign any or all parts of an EIC. The question would be what is the signature worth?
Disclaimer. You may not have an Auntie Flo, or if you do she may be a qualified electrician.
N
NeoX
I think it's best to leave morals out of this for the sake of keeping the discussion on track and this not becoming a drawn-out Internet debate. Reason being, this is about signatures on a sheet of paper, not whether the work has been done properly. I believe the work has been done properly as I have monitored it rigorously and had daily discussions with the builder as to his work, and I've checked everything - and this would have been my only option until the EIC existed (that, or faith). The sheet of paper we're talking about didn't exist until 2005. It does not make all work prior to 2005 immoral.
All I want is for my tenants and property to be safe, for the electrics to be proper and functional, and for the works and me to be legal. If someone other than the person who did the work signs of all three parts of the EIC, if that still means the tenants and property are safe, the electrics are proper and functional, and the works and me are legal, then I'm happy with that. If it means the person who signs it is doing something illegal at risk only to himself, then that's his prerogative.
That said, if there's no real advantage to him signing the first two parts if he's going to sign the third part (because the third part effectively endorses the first two parts), then I see little point in him taking this risk. Similarly, if there are legal implications for me, then I would obviously prefer my builder to sign the first two parts.
I'm new to this, hence why I'm on here asking questions. But I've also heard that some inspectors are not as invasive or thorough as the online official literature makes out. Some just come along, do some basic tests, maybe have a chat with the electrician to make sure he has a clue, and then sign it all off. Others are more serious and by the book.
I don't have first-hand experience of an inspection (yet), but I'm learning, and this project is a learning experience that I will definitely know more about after for when I go into my next big project as to Building Regulations, EICs, etc.
I think that's the sight of someone running away from an issue where he knows he is in the wrong.
But the signatures on the paper are part of the work. And if the signature on the paper is a lie then the work has not been done properly.
Then why can't the person who actually did the design and the construction sign a declaration to say that he did it properly?
Nonsense.
I don't know enough about the history of the Wiring Regulations to be able to say when certification first appeared, but I can assure you that it was long before 2005. The regulations have had test requirements in them since 1897.
Shameful.
Sponsored Links
N
NeoX
Disagree. The most qualified electrician on the planet could do the work and then his 4-year-old daughter could scribble on the paper. The paperwork has nothing to do with whether the work has been done properly. If the work has been done properly, the paperwork can be signed by the installer or by someone else. If the work has not been done properly, then the paperwork can still be signed by the installer or by someone else. In other words, the paper can be signed by anyone regardless of whether the work has been done properly or not.
He can - he is able to read and write. It doesn't mean he has to. You're missing the point of my question and the crux of this is in the third-to-last paragraph of my last post - this is the pertinent point:
EIC did not exist prior to 2005. If you admit you don't know enough to comment, then your use of the word "nonsense" in the same context is obtuse.
I said I don't want an Internet argument. I see nothing "shameful" about wanting my tenants and property to be safe, the electrics to be proper and functional and the works and me to be legal.
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,615
- Reaction score
- 2,659
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
The Emma Shaw case points out how when things go wrong courts will work out exactly what happened and will blame some one and not always the person you think.
The guy who was blamed in that case did not go to the site and it was because he knew the guy who signed the certificate did not have the ability to complete the task given to him.
Clearly the accident was caused by the guy who put a nail through the cable but he was not blamed.
As BAS says there is no qualification required to sign an installation certificate and since you say LABC is now involved clearly the correct person should sign in the correct place.
The rule is rather simple
If you can't design safely then don't design.
If you can't install safely then don't Install.
If you can't inspect and test safely then don't inspect and test.
And of course if you can do them safely then why should you not sign the certificate?
If you know the builder has done the installation and he tells you he has the skill required to do this work then if you accept a certificate with any other signature on it then should some thing go wrong like with Emma Shaw then your likely to be blamed as you knew it was wrong.
Some times one reads the cases and you think that's not right. There was one I can't remember the name where the tenant knew there was a fault before moving in and had reported it to land lady how had in turn contacted an electrician but before the electrician was able to correct the fault the tenant moved in and she was killed.
Personally I would have said since they knew there was a fault they should have not moved in simple. But the court blamed the land lady and one asks why she did all she could it was the tenant who moved in before it was fixed and it was the tenants faulty equipment which was part way to blame.
This crossing the T's and dotting the I's approach does not work with the courts. If you know there is a problem it does not matter about paperwork it's you who will be blamed.
Your best bet to ensure your not blamed is to let the local authority building control take charge. If however you want to save money by not using them the risk is yours. As soon as it's found out you knew the builder had done work without having enough skill to be willing to sign the installation certificate then you will be blamed.
Of course nothing may go wrong in which case your OK. Only when things go wrong does anyone really bother about who signed what.
The guy who was blamed in that case did not go to the site and it was because he knew the guy who signed the certificate did not have the ability to complete the task given to him.
Clearly the accident was caused by the guy who put a nail through the cable but he was not blamed.
As BAS says there is no qualification required to sign an installation certificate and since you say LABC is now involved clearly the correct person should sign in the correct place.
The rule is rather simple
If you can't design safely then don't design.
If you can't install safely then don't Install.
If you can't inspect and test safely then don't inspect and test.
And of course if you can do them safely then why should you not sign the certificate?
If you know the builder has done the installation and he tells you he has the skill required to do this work then if you accept a certificate with any other signature on it then should some thing go wrong like with Emma Shaw then your likely to be blamed as you knew it was wrong.
Some times one reads the cases and you think that's not right. There was one I can't remember the name where the tenant knew there was a fault before moving in and had reported it to land lady how had in turn contacted an electrician but before the electrician was able to correct the fault the tenant moved in and she was killed.
Personally I would have said since they knew there was a fault they should have not moved in simple. But the court blamed the land lady and one asks why she did all she could it was the tenant who moved in before it was fixed and it was the tenants faulty equipment which was part way to blame.
This crossing the T's and dotting the I's approach does not work with the courts. If you know there is a problem it does not matter about paperwork it's you who will be blamed.
Your best bet to ensure your not blamed is to let the local authority building control take charge. If however you want to save money by not using them the risk is yours. As soon as it's found out you knew the builder had done work without having enough skill to be willing to sign the installation certificate then you will be blamed.
Of course nothing may go wrong in which case your OK. Only when things go wrong does anyone really bother about who signed what.
I didn't think that it had been suggested that the person who undertook the work was insufficiently skilled (other than unable to undertake the testing), or that the work had been done incompetently - most of this discussion has been about the testing (which obviously has to be undertaken, and 'signed for', by someone) and the bureaucracy of bits of paper. NeoX recently wrote:
Kind Regards, John
Not quite sure where you dreamt that up from, but I was filing in EICs when I started out in this trade in 1997. Here's an excerpt from my regs from the time (BS7671:1992 amd 2)
Chapter 74
Regulation 741-01-01
"Following the initial verification required by Chapter 71 or Chapter 72, an Electrical Installation Certificate in the form set out in Appendix 6, together with a schedule of test results, shall be given to the person ordering the work."
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,615
- Reaction score
- 2,659
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
Clearly the electrician will not have done all three parts covered by the installation certificate so you know it's a false document. As to who a court would find guilty should anything go wrong we of course don't know but some blame would be proportioned to you.
I am not saying that cheating like this should not be done I am sure it happens all the time but it would seem you want to be where you can't be blamed.
When some one dies in their own house courts seem to side on the unfortunate accident but where it is a rented house courts seem to want to blame the land lord.
The Thirza Whittall case seems to have conflicting reports first one I read claimed the oil filled radiator was the tenants but latter reports say how Hilary Thompson the land lady was fined for the faulty radiator and this is the problem with many court case reports one can see there are faults with the reporting.
I'm getting rather confused about this whole thread, and wonder whether it has perhaps become over-theoretical and, in some respects, hypothetical.
My understanding is that, not having made an up-front application to his LABC, the OP has initiated a Regularisation application. I can but presume that many such applications arise in relation to situations in which there is not (and probably cannot be - 'lost electricians' etc.) any EIC - so I would imagine that the procedure must have provision for dealing with the application in the absence of any such documentation. In practice, I suspect that the LABC might simply undertake or commission an EICR, since it's hard to see what else they could realistically do.
Kind Regards, John
Maybe you missed the first part of what I wrote
Can? Well, yes, in the strict sense of the word - anybody able to sign their name can sign it.
But may? No way.
Look at it again:
I being the person responsible for the Design of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the Design, hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008, amended to 2011 except for the departures, if any, detailed as follows...
How on earth may somebody who did not do the work legitimately sign a declaration to say that he did, and to certify that he did it in accordance with BS 7671?
In which case either person would be signing fraudulently.
No, it doesn't. If he wants to do design and installation work and refuse to certify that his work complies with BS 7671 that's his choice (but he should read the Ts'n'Cs of any contracts carefully, lest he be in breach).
But if he refuses that does not mean that someone else may lie and say that he did it.
The third part does not in any way endorse the first two, except in the minds of hard-of-thinking electricians.
Of course it did - long before. Where on earth did you get that stupid idea from, and why do you keep repeating it?
You appear to be quite good at not reading properly. I'm not sure yet whether that's because you have intellectual challenges or because you've decided to be deliberately blind to things which don't agree with decisions you've already made.
I'll try again:
I don't know enough about the history of the Wiring Regulations to be able to say when certification first appeared, but I can assure you that it was long before 2005.
Do you see anything shameful with conspiring to issue a fraudulent EIC?
Aaaaaaand suddenly everyone looses all interest.....
Only the trivial, the lackadaisical and the hard-of-thinking.
Nope, I assure you as soon as you start doing your large font, multi coloured, multi quote replies, literally everybody bar you looses interest.
Certainly 'lose interest' in terms of reading, let alone responding to, those large-font, multi-coloured, multi-quote posts - but sometimes some of us try to carry on a parallel 'useful' discussion which may be of some interest/value to the OP (if the OP has not given up on the thread as well)!
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
