No EIC for recent Flat conversion

[JohnW2]

I was once in the position of having to approve acceptance of an externally designed power supply for a somewhat specialised application. I had to travel down to the south coast to see it working. Everything seemed great, but I asked them to show me what happened when the input voltage dropped. When smoke and flames stared to pour out they hurriedly left the room. OK - such a product would hopefully never reach the market, but it has always made me think that nothing is impossible.

Fair enough - as you say, (virtually) nothing is impossible.

However, that does not alter the generality of what I said. The experience you describe must be incredibly rare - I think I would probably struggle to deliberately design something so that it would burst into flames if the supply voltage to it was reduced!

In any event, even if such were possible, I don't see that it would help in terms of the BS7671 regulation about VD - since, particularly for a sockets circuit (into which anything could be plugged) there's no way that a designer of an electrical installation could know that such a vulnerability might exist in some future loads.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I walked out halfway though my C&G2381 exam allotted time and got 100%. Draw your own conclusions.

Well, I suppose that I might just conclude that you are a very clever person However, whilst I'm not suggesting that you aren't, there clearly are alternative possible conclusions.

Kind Regards, John

 

[frank999]

The debate is all very helpful.

As developer and soon to be landlord, I need to be sure the new circuits and installation that are 'installed' are safe.

My Onsite Guide states the 'The EICR does not certify anything and, hence, must not be issued to certify new electrical installation work'.

signing the declaration that they did the work in compliance with BS7671 - and I don't fully understand why, in your case, the person who actually did the work can't, or couldn't, do that.

As Ericmark commented, the builder I had assumed, was working as apprentice - and 'adequately supervised', so the Electrician - they had assured me would come in and sign off, and what inspections he would make was between them and their trusting Electrical 'partner'.
As it turned out, and unbeknownst to me, the Electrician did not work with these builders in such a fashion, and stated he now could not sign off their work, which like my Electrician, I understand this ... knowing what I know now about this now - I would not have allowed the builders to have done any electrical work without their Electrician having first met me and told me whether he was happy to work in the way the builders had reassured me would.

As developer, all I want is for the correct workmanship and paperwork to be in place.

Competent Persons Scheme, it is Part P that requires such a person to be registered/certified ?

So there is a slim chance there was some thing which the builder had intended to do, which in fact he didn't do, which is now hidden from view.
No bit of paperwork will change that.

The builder has not answered the phone, and 'his' electrician will not certify any of his work, apart from issue an EICR, which as I now understand does not certify anything new.
Walls are quick and dirty Dot and Dab (as was the style of this builder), so recessing new ring circuits to sockets is do-able, lighting cables could be visually inspected using cameras poked through the downlighter holes (I've done it before) - so will ask my electrician if he is willing to issue an EIC if he can inspect cable runs, he has already installed the CU for this install, only area that could be a problem are two bathrooms - could he issue an 'EIC with limitations' for these two areas.

 

[ericmark]

Is is nice to see some one who accepts his resonanciblity, and wants the correct paperwork, and as I see it the third party issuing of compliance certificates was to allow tradesmen who worked together to sign for the other persons work, so a Plumber can connect up a boiler and then electrician sign it off.

But it seems many of the scheme providers do not like the idea, and don't offer it.

It is back to Union days and demarcation, and in real terms Maggie Thatcher got rid of the closed shop and crushed the Unions power to police the trade, and the scheme providers are basically replacing the Union closed shop system, I have questioned if the Scheme system actually brakes the closed shop rules, and is illegal?

However in real terms the paperwork does not matter that much, all we want is a safe installation, and some one prepaired to hold up their hands and say I have done this job, and I have done to to IET/Bsi rules.

And of course any paperwork that does exist needs to show this is the case, so if the builder writes a recipt for electricial work, then you can't have a EIC from some one else, it could be forwarded by builder, and the builder would be listed as client on paper work.

So to sign off, really only option is LABC completion certificate, and they are as much use as chocolate fire guard, they simply tax you work, and it seems are rarely taken to task when they make errors.

So what can go wrong with inaccessable wiring? It may not be in safe zones, but tenants should not be drilling walls, so does it matter? It is unlikely junction boxes, or cables out of safe zones have been installed.

I think your going OTT, if the LABC will issue a completion certificate then they have taken responcablity for the work complying, so you simply hide behind the LABC and let them carry the can.

 

[frank999]

and some one prepaired to hold up their hands and say I have done this job, and I have done to to IET/Bsi rules.
But, with the builder being uncommunictive, and their Electrician not willing to sign off their work, there is no one willing to do this.

I think your going OTT, so you simply hide behind the LABC and let them carry the can.
Umm, I have used a private BC (Stroma) ... happy to accept EIC ior EICR's , but I don't get how new installations don't need an EIC for BC approval, when the guidance states you can't simply rely on an EICR to certify anything, surely the whole point of certifying is that it complies, and surely new circuits need certifying ??

I have questioned if the Scheme system actually brakes the closed shop rules, and is illegal?
Umm - guess non compliant installs are only a problem till there's a problem, but by then damage/loss etc will have happened, which should have been avoided,a nd which in my case I feel Iam trying to do.

 

[JohnW2]

Umm, I have used a private BC (Stroma) ... happy to accept EIC ior EICR's , but I don't get how new installations don't need an EIC for BC approval, when the guidance states you can't simply rely on an EICR to certify anything, surely the whole point of certifying is that it complies, and surely new circuits need certifying ??

As I've said before, any electrical work (from trivial to complete new/re-wires) should result in an EIC (or the 'Minor Works' equivalent, where appropriate), and it's difficult to see why there ever wouldn't/couldn't be one - unless the person who designed, constructed and tested the work died, or otherwise disappeared, before they had a chance to issue a certificate!

However, as I also said, there really is very little difference between an EIC and an EICR for a whole installation. An EICR can include the inspection of everything visible/accessible and the testing of everything testable, so 'misses' only the inspection of things which had become inaccessible (essentially hidden cables). An EIC 'covers that', in the sense that there is a signed declaration of compliance from the person who did the work, but only in the sense that one "has to take the person's word for it", since it is based on no other 'evidence', and cannot be verified - and, as I implied, no-one is going to make a declaration that work they have done, which is no longer accessible, was NOT done in compliance with BS7671!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

When I wanted to DIY mothers wet room, I read Part P which clearly states an EIC is not required and will not be issued by the LABC they will only issue a completion certificate. The LABC can inspect the work themselves, but they can also engage a third party to do it, the third party inspector will complete an EICR which is given to the LABC inspector, however it is the LABC who selects the inspector, not the home owner, they may have a list of inspectors, but although I can do an EICR the LABC inspector did not want to accept my EICR or EIC he wanted it done by some one on his list, that he trusted.

Since they wanted me to pay for the third party inspector, I was not happy, and my son broke the deadlock by saying OK but the third party inspector must be the same or higher qualified to my dad, or if there is any thing he does not like, you will be in same position, whose word do you take, and my dad has a degree.

At this point he backed down.

However point of story is the LABC do not just take any EICR, it has to be one from their trusted list, the IET/BSi will not permit anyone who has not done the work to sign an EIC so this is a work around, basic same form, but not signing to say they designed or installed, only inspected and tested.

There are three signatures on some EIC, and there is nothing to stop the builders electrician to sign that he designed, the builder signing to say he installed and your electrician to say he inspected and tested.

With one job I filled in the EIC and put the builders name minus signature for design and installation and only signed the inspection and testing, and expected the document to be rejected, however the LABC rubber stamped it and issued a completion certificate.

The LABC inspector can insist things are re-exposed, and I thought he would, but he passed it. Latter whole house except kitchen and wet room was rewired, I expected there to be a note in exceptions, but there is nothing on the EIC to show he didn't do kitchen and wet room.

And when I came to buy this house I was given a copy of the EIC and after I had bought the house, realised it only covered the flat under the house, the main house was not covered.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Wow. Where to start?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Please tell us where Part P states an EIC is not required and for what electrical work an EIC is not required.

 

[JohnW2]

The LABC inspector can insist things are re-exposed, and I thought he would, but he passed it.

I do woinder what this is all about. What would an inspector expect to discover by "re-exposing" work - cables not in safe zones or hidden non-MF JB's perhaps? I would be very surprised if any but the most extreme Jobsworths would see any point in "re-exposing".

And when I came to buy this house I was given a copy of the EIC and after I had bought the house, realised it only covered the flat under the house, the main house was not covered.

That was presumably because it was an EIC relating to work done in the flat, not an EICR covering the entire electrical installation of the building.

Kind Regards, John

 

[frank999]

Please tell us where Part P states an EIC is not required and for what electrical work an EIC is not required.
Yes, this is what I'm asking.

Today I chipped away screed at the rooms edges - to follow cable embeddeed run at the screeds edge, it revealled cables passing against some areas of sharp stone and copper piping, should cable be protected within a screed, say within 15mm pipe insulation. Presume a screed slab is going expand and contract with under floor heating embedded within, and the cables unprotected at the edges may suffer over time ... or shoud they be near the screed at all ?
Without the EIC who takes the responsibility for this ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Please tell us where Part P states an EIC is not required and for what electrical work an EIC is not required.
Yes, this is what I'm asking.

Well, my question was the opposite of rhetorical - whatever that is.

Part P says no such thing; this is Part P of The Building Regulations in its entirity:

That's it; there is no more.

To satisfy that, an accepted way is following BS7671.

Other things get called Part P this and that but they are nothing to do with it.

BS7671 The Wiring Regulations state that all work shall be tested and to record the results sample certificates are shown and may as well be used but are not mandatory in that form.
Anyone can complete the certificates for their work so there is no reason not to issue one.

Today I chipped away screed at the rooms edges - to follow cable embeddeed run at the screeds edge, it revealled cables passing against some areas of sharp stone and copper piping, should cable be protected within a screed, say within 15mm pipe insulation. Presume a screed slab is going expand and contract with under floor heating embedded within, and the cables unprotected at the edges may suffer over time ... or shoud they be near the screed at all ?

Burying cables in masonry is perfectly acceptable but obviously common sense has to be used as well, however this attribute is now a rarity - not to mention caring by some so-called tradesmen.

Without the EIC who takes the responsibility for this ?

Well, obviously the person who did it or oversaw the work.

 

[JohnW2]

Please tell us where Part P states an EIC is not required and for what electrical work an EIC is not required. Yes, this is what I'm asking.

As EFLI has explained, his question was essentially 'sarcastic' - given that we all know (as does eric, even though he makes this mistake all the time) that (the one sentence of) 'Part P' says nothing specific, and certainly nothing about EICs. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in any law says anything about EICs.

Without the EIC who takes the responsibility for this ?

If something is done wrong and has consequences, the person who did it is obviously responsible - and that would remain the case even if (which usually would be the case) the person had issued an EIC including a signed a declaration that he/she had done nothing wrong (non-compliant with BS7671). In other words, the existence or non-existence of an EIC makes absolutely no difference to who is responsible for the work done (or for any consequences of it being done badly/incorrectly/unsafely).

As EFLI has said, nothing in law says that an EIC (or any other document) has to be issued in relation to electrical work, and nor does it make compliance with BS7671 mandatory - and, as he also said, even if one does work to BS7671, there is no compulsion to use the sample certificates it contains (the things we call "EICs").

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

c. Where installers are not qualified to complete BS 7671 completion certificates
1.24 Where such installers (who may be contractors or DIYers) carry out notifiable electrical work, the building control body must be notified before the work starts. Where the work is necessary because of an emergency the building control body should be notified as soon as possible.The building control body then becomes responsible for making sure that the work is safe and complies with all relevant requirements in the Building Regulations.
1.25 The amount of inspection and testing needed is for the building control body to decide, based on the nature and extent of the electrical work. For relatively simple notifiable jobs, such as adding a socket-outlet to a kitchen circuit, the inspection and testing requirements will be minimal. For a house re-wire, a full set of inspections and tests may need to be carried out.
1.26 The building control body may choose to carry out the inspection and testing itself, or to contract out some or all of the work to a specialist body which will then carry out the work on its behalf. Building control bodies will carry out the necessary inspection and testing at their expense, not at the householders’ expense.
1.27 A building control body will not issue a BS 7671 installation certificate (as these can be issued only by those carrying out the work), but only a Building Regulations completion certificate (the local authority) or a final certificate (an approved inspector).

I knew I had it some where, so where the work is done by some one not trained to do inspection and testing no EIC will be issued, all you have or need is the completion certificate. It seems the certificate issued is not called an EICR it is called a "final certificate". This is where I found it there have been some changed I think now you need to pay for the inspection.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I knew I had it some where, so where the work is done by some one not trained to do inspection and testing no EIC will be issued, all you have or need is the completion certificate.

No it isn't.

What you have in the quote relates to work being notified to the LA prior to commencement of the work.

The link relates to work carried out by DIYers, who, rather than pay the LA fee, employs a third party inspector who must supervise the work throughout, then issue an EIC as if he had done the work, notify his registration scheme who then inform the LA and issue a Compliance Certificate to the DIYer(householder).

However, some schemes refused to have anything to do with third party inspections consequently they were hard to find.
Also, I do not believe this method would actually be cheaper than paying the LA fee (apart from the ones that charged exorbitant fees).

It seems the certificate issued is not called an EICR it is called a "final certificate". This is where I found it there have been some changed I think now you need to pay for the inspection.

You are getting confused with these two separate issues - neither of which has to do with Frank's situation.