EICs

[FingRinal]

I'm just pointing out that in some cases it is acceptable not to measure Zs or Ze. And it's the inspector who decides. But even if it's not measured putting n/a in the relevant boxes is not acceptable.

I agree. There is a difference btwn putting N/A for Ze and entering a value for 'Zdb'.

The OP clearly mentioned a dwelling property. It's not too difficult to isolate the installation for the 2 mins it takes to do a proper Ze.

The main thrust of the debate (or one of them) was certifying without inspecting 1st fix.

I know the way of the real world, but I often question how the homeowner would feel if they realised that their NICEIC (or other) certified new installation hadn't been fully inspected by the Inspector and Tester in compliance with BS7671.

Councils are often inundated with PIRs with LIMs splatted over them like chicken pox. I've seen them with LIMs on Ze, Zdb, Zs...you name it. Basically anything that's a hassle or takes more than a min. wager to perform is noted as a LIM.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

1. You can't EIC an installation without having done the work.

If you do the design, and to the best of your knowledge and belief your design was in accordance with BS 7671, could you not sign a declaration to certify that?

Could you sign it if it was going to be installed by someone else, and tested by someone else again?

If you do the construction, and to the best of your knowledge and belief your construction was in accordance with BS 7671, could you not sign a declaration to certify that?

Could you sign it if you did not design it and if it was going to be tested by someone else?

If you do the inspection & testing, and to the best of your knowledge and belief your inspection & testing was in accordance with BS 7671, could you not sign a declaration to certify that?

Could you sign it if you did not design it or construct it?

 

[FingRinal]

BAS,

there are two BS7671 EIC forms - the single signature and the multi-signature.

let's put it this way:

If it was your job to count 10 widgets and press a button when you'd counted 10 widgets, would it be right to press the button when you'd counted 9 widgets or 11 widgets?

Would 'I persistently turned up for work on time to the best of my knowledge' cut it with HR?

If it's your job to be the inspector, then inspect. Don't put your feet up because it's a rainy day and a muddy site and justify it by saying that you inspected and tested to the 'best' of your knowledge.

Now, some certs. require ticks after 1st Fix and 2nd Fix and if you are in one of those clubs, it's pretty obvious what you have to do. It's pretty clear what the BS7671 standard forms require (I would have thought).

 

[GaryMo]

It's not a valid EIC unless design, construction and I&T have all been signed for either by a single person or by numerous.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If it was your job to count 10 widgets and press a button when you'd counted 10 widgets, would it be right to press the button when you'd counted 9 widgets or 11 widgets?

That's an invalid analogy.

What if the job was to count the widgets in each box, and that number was supposed to be 10.

If you're given a box with 9 or 11 widgets in, is that your fault?

Are you unable to say "my counting was accurate" because somebody else put the wrong number in?

Would 'I persistently turned up for work on time to the best of my knowledge' cut it with HR?

Do you have the skills and the equipment needed to determine if you were turning up on time? If yes, and you weren't then you're lying, and this discussion isn't about people falsifying reports.

If no then maybe your competence to determine if you were turning up on time should be questioned, and this discussion is not about people who aren't competent to sign EICs.

If it's your job to be the inspector, then inspect. Don't put your feet up because it's a rainy day and a muddy site and justify it by saying that you inspected and tested to the 'best' of your knowledge.

And where on earth have I suggested that?

What inventions are you adding to the words of mine that you have read which lead you to think that's what I'm suggesting? If it's your job to be the inspector then you would know that staying in the warm and dry and not inspecting is not in accordance with BS 7671, so it would be a falsehood for you to say that to the best of your knowledge and belief your inspecting was in accordance, and this discussion is not about people falsifying reports.

If it's your job to be the inspector, then inspect.

And report what you find as a result of your inspection.

If you are unable to carry out a particular inspection, then record that fact.

It's pretty clear what the BS7671 standard forms require (I would have thought).

I/We being the person(s) responsible for the inspection & testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my/our signatures below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the inspection & testing hereby CERTIFY that the work for which I/we have been responsible is to the best of my/our knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008, amended to ..............................(date) except for the departures, if any, detailed as follows:

 

[FingRinal]

I think this one has drawn to an end BAS.

But I would say that you don't understand the words you highlighted in red.

How can it be so if you don't do it? Inspecting 1st fix is one the most important tasks an Inspector has. Not doing it can in no way be included in the words you highlighted in red.

Rather than picking over the words you highlighted in red, perhaps you could list some excuses or situations that you believe would excuse the Inspector from his duties.

Then perhaps the Forum can debate the merits of them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But I would say that you don't understand the words you highlighted in red.

I'm sure you would, but the reality is quite the opposite.

How can it be so if you don't do it? Inspecting 1st fix is one the most important tasks an Inspector has. Not doing it can in no way be included in the words you highlighted in red.

OK - let's try highlighting a larger section of the declaration.

I/We being the person(s) responsible for the inspection & testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my/our signatures below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the inspection & testing hereby CERTIFY that the work for which I/we have been responsible is to the best of my/our knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008, amended to ..............................(date) except for the departures, if any, detailed as follows:

In other words you are certifying that what you did was in accordance with BS7671.

If you did not do something then the fact that you did not do it is recorded on the EIC.

If you did not do something then you have not done it, not done it but not in accordance with BS 7671.

Rather than picking over the words you highlighted in red, perhaps you could list some excuses or situations that you believe would excuse the Inspector from his duties.

His duty is to inspect and test in accordance with BS 7671.

If he is unable to carry out certain inspections or tests that does not mean that the ones he did do were not in accordance with BS 7671, so it does not mean that he can't sign a document to say that what he did do was in accordance with BS 7671.

Whether the situation which prevents him from carrying out a particular inspection or test is one which he should legitimately allow to prevent him is a matter for his sense of professional duty. It would have to be discussed with the client and the effect on the validity of the certificate as proof of the state of the installation made clear to him.

So "I wont be able to do that because it's raining" is not likely to go down well, and is not likely to be to the client's satisfaction, and he is not likely to view the inspector as having exercised reasonable skill and care.

"I will not be able to verify that cables have been installed in prescribed zones because they've been plastered over" may also not be to his liking, but he can't complain that the inspector has not exercised reasonable skill and care in determining that he will not be able to carry out that inspection.

 

[FingRinal]

In other words you are certifying that what you did was in accordance with BS7671.

So please quote a Reg which states that you do so, apart from the ones you don't want to do.

Care to offer any examples of when it would be appropriate to not do something?

Having said that, let's stick to BS7671 and not BAS7671

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So please quote a Reg which states that you do so, apart from the ones you don't want to do.

It looks like it doesn't matter how many times I point out that I'm not saying it's OK for him not to do something because he just doesn't want to, you just aren't going to listen, are you.

Care to offer any examples of when it would be appropriate to not do something?

When you CAN'T.

 

[FingRinal]

You're making the point that you can, BAS.

So, please, give us some examples for discussion.

Don't try and body swerve.

Now, if you can't, don't reply and that will be that

Edit: and please stop shouting.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You're making the point that you can, BAS.

Can what?

I'm not sure you've associated my "can't" with the right thing.

Q: Care to offer any examples of when it would be appropriate to not do something?

A: When you can't.

i.e. it is appropriate to not do so something when you can't do it - unless you think it's appropriate to do something impossible.

So, please, give us some examples for discussion.

A buried cable - by the time you go to do your inspection it's been backfilled and surfaced. You have no idea how deep it is, what care has been taken to avoid it getting damaged, whether any warning tape etc has been used, whether it's one continuous length or has joins etc etc.

You can't inspect it, therefore it would not be appropriate for you to do it, nor would it be appropriate to do anything other than record that fact.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[GaryMo]

Hence the phrase "best of/my of knowledge and belief", your commenting on what you were able to see on that date in that place, no one expects you to have xray vision.

Nor should you need x-ray vision as the construction should have been carried out in accordance with BS7671. This will be verified by the constructors signature.

All this isn't relevant to this topic though as the (invalid) EIC completed could be missing signatures of both the designer and constructor.

 

[FingRinal]

The constructor would simply roll out BAS's excuse...'to the best of my knowledge'...because he would say that the Inspector and Tester who is more qualified with 2391 etc. inspected his work.

The assertion in your argument BAS is that the Inspector is absolved of all errors, mistakes, faults, dangers, incompetence etc. signed for by the Designer and Constructor.

The constructor may think he has installed something correctly, it is the Inspector's responsibility to confirm that.

The Inspector could just sit at home and write out the paperwork. He could sit at home and get his son to do it for him whilst he plays golf.

Yes BAS, the Inspector could do anything. But should he?

I would suggest that an Inspector who works in the way that you would BAS, would either not work for the same company as the constructor and designer, had an axe to grind, or was getting paid no matter how he completed his work.

And what of the client? Poor them.

BAS7671...says it all really....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The assertion in your argument BAS is that the Inspector is absolved of all errors, mistakes, faults, dangers, incompetence etc. signed for by the Designer and Constructor.

If he was unable to test and inspect the areas where these errors etc occurred, and his certification reflected that inability then yes.

Read the declaration he signs - it's just certifying that he did his inspection and testing in accordance with BS 7671, it's not certifying that the other signatories were telling the truth.

Provided he is able to test and inspect everything properly, and provided the results of his tests and inspections show that all is well then the results are what show that the installation complies, but his declaration that the work for which he was responsible complied applies only to the work that he did, i.e. the inspection and testing.

The constructor may think he has installed something correctly, it is the Inspector's responsibility to confirm that.

The Inspector could just sit at home and write out the paperwork. He could sit at home and get his son to do it for him whilst he plays golf.

Yes BAS, the Inspector could do anything. But should he?

It seems that no matter how many times I explain that I'm talking about the situation where the inspector cannot inspect something, you are just going to keep on taking no notice and keep on suggesting examples where for some reason he has chosen not to inspect it.

I would suggest that an Inspector who works in the way that you would BAS, would either not work for the same company as the constructor and designer, had an axe to grind, or was getting paid no matter how he completed his work.

And I would suggest that if the inspector had discussed the limitations of what he could inspect, and the extent to which his results would say nothing about the state of the installation, and he was nevertheless engaged to do what he could, and he then did what he could in a professional manner, that he would be perfectly entitled to be paid.

And what of the client? Poor them.

Why poor them? They are the ones responsible for the state of the installation when they hand it over for testing.