Correct Electrical Installation Documentation?

[sunnyjim]

I would really appreciate some expert guidance.

i have just had a complete rewire including a new consumer unit. I expected to receive an installation certificate with supporting docs showing all the test readings for the distribution board and wiring.

The only paperwork I have received is the notification certificate.

When the install was complete I asked the electrician for the installation & test certificate & he said it comes all in with the notification document. I had my doubts but waited and after some chasing just received the notification certificate which has no additional test results and isn't an electrical installation certificate as I suspected.

Can you experts clarify what paperwork/docs I should have received from the electrician & is their a legal requirement to provide these test readings in a certificate format. (Who knows he may have not tested his own installation)

your help is really appreciated.

 

[Taylortwocities]

If you have had a rewire and the consumer unit has been replaced then, you are correct, you should have received an Electrical Installation Certificate (EIC) which includes all of the test results and other details of the installation itself.
This is a requirement of the Wiring Regulations. If you have received a Notification Cert then this means the electrician will be a member of one of the schemes (the Notification Cert should have come from his scheme, so its easy to find out).

Go back to the spark and insist that you should have an EIC. If he won't play ball then you should take it up with his scheme.

EDIT: BS7671 (The Wiring Regulations) Chapter 63 states:

"631.1 Upon completion of the verification of a new installation or changes to an existing installation, an Electrical Installation Certificate shall be provided."

Further, it goes on to say that the EIC will be accompanied by a schedule of inspections and a schedule oftest results.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

As above the electrician should have completed an electrical installation certificate, which will include Your details, the address where work was undertaken, the extent of the work carried out, characteristics of supply, protection and earthing arrangements, schedules of inspection, schedules of tests and circuit arrangements, remarks upon the existing installation if any and contractors details, date of completion, date of next inspection.
You should have been issued a copy of this by the electrician, normally this is completed prior to the notification certificate/notice of compliance.
There should be details of which scheme provider they are member of, first chase the EIC up with contractor, then talked to scheme provider if you have no joy.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

is their a legal requirement to provide these test readings in a certificate format. (Who knows he may have not tested his own installation).

There is a legal requirement for the electrician to prove they have made reasonable provisions that the installation is safe. If they have not completed inspection and tests to prove this, then I would say they have broken the law!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

If you have the contractors trading/business name or address, but do not know what scheme provider they are registered to. You can use this link to find them.
http://www.competentperson.co.uk/

 

[JohnW2]

There is a legal requirement for the electrician to prove they have made reasonable provisions that the installation is safe. If they have not completed inspection and tests to prove this, then I would say they have broken the law!

Whilst I obviously agree that the I&T should have been undertaken, and an EIC supplied, UK law (at least, in England and Wales!) does not really work like that. The legal requirement is to make reasonable provisions for safety, but there is no requirement to 'prove' that one has complied with this (or any other) law. People are 'innocent until proved guilty' - so if there were an accusation that this law had been broken, it would be for the prosecution to prove that - not for the accused to prove that (s)he had not broken the law (although their defence, if prosecuted, would obviously be an argument to that effect).

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

That is why I offered my opinion on this, rather than state it was an absolute.
I would assume if the client had problems with a newly installed circuit or full system and they or a member of family friend, guest or visitor, just so happen to be injured or died because of this, and the contractor could not prove they had proved it was safe to put into service, the law would take a different view to it, than they would, if no one had incurred injury by an untested install?

But because no one was injured, does that make the offence a lesser one?

 

[Adam_151]

Its worthwhile to add to that John, is that while working to BS7671 is not a requirement of the law per see..... but it will be a requirement of the scheme rules that he will have signed his agreement to (which he must be have done as he is able to submit notifications)

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Its worthwhile to add to that John, is that while working to BS7671 is not a requirement of the law per see..... but it will be a requirement of the scheme rules that he will have signed his agreement to (which he must be have done as he is able to submit notifications)

But I am talking about the legal requirement laid down by part p of the building regulations, not BS7671!

 

[JohnW2]

I would assume if the client had problems with a newly installed circuit or full system and they or a member of family friend, guest or visitor, just so happen to be injured or died because of this, and the contractor could not prove they had proved it was safe to put into service, the law would take a different view to it, than they would, if no one had incurred injury by an untested install?

As I said, it would be for the prosecution to prove that the work was not safe, not for the accused to prove that it was. However, as I also said, in practice once defence in such a situation would boil down to attempts tp prove that it was safe - or, at least, to discredit the prosecutions assertions that it was unsafe. However, that is all 'after the event'.

My point was that, before there has been any accusation of unsafe work (with or without any injury/death), there is no legal obligation to 'prove' (or document that proof) that the work was done safely. In any event, at the best of times it is a rather odd sort of 'proof' that relies totally on what someone has written (or typed/printed) onto a piece of paper to 'protect' him/herself - the EIC could theoretical be totally fiction!

But because no one was injured, does that make the offence a lesser one?

It would obviously usually be a different, or additional, offence if someone had been injured or killed - by the demonstration that the work had (or had not) been undertaken with reasonable provisions for safety would presumably be the same in all cases.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Its worthwhile to add to that John, is that while working to BS7671 is not a requirement of the law per see..... but it will be a requirement of the scheme rules that he will have signed his agreement to (which he must be have done as he is able to submit notifications)

Indeed, but I was responding to PBoD's suggestion that it might be unlawful for someone not to 'prove' (by issuing an EIC) that the work had been undertaken adequately safely.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

The electrician could test and see that the readings were perfectly satisfactory and thereby satisfy himself that the installation is perfectly safe. So in my opinion if he did that, he would certainly have satisfied all that the law demands, which is to make reasonable provision for safety. (Whether he did, in fact, do that, is another matter, of course.)

The fact that BS7671 stipulates that a test certificate shall be provided, and that he was, presumably, working under the auspices of a scheme which requires adherence to BS7671 for the notification requirements would be a different matter, and certainly one that his scheme organization might well want to follow up on.

 

[stillp]

Also, having promised an EIC together with the 'notification certificate, and failed to supply one, isn't he in breach of contract?

 

[PBC_1966]

Also, having promised an EIC together with the 'notification certificate, and failed to supply one, isn't he in breach of contract?

I would say so.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

oftest

Oh please no - not another toothless regulatory body....