What sort?
Lack of Minor Works Certificate with DIY'ers?
- Thread starter eveares
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The guidance used to state ".. or an
alternative national technical specification of
any state which is a contracting party to the
European Economic Area"
So nothing to do with the EU. You may collect your "I am an ignorant fool whose ignorance could destroy this country" hat and/or t-shirt at your convenience.
Why do people keep inventing that term?
Sponsored Links
Quite so - and as I'm always saying, if they want to inevnt it, they also need to invent a way of defining what it would mean - in a world in which small (sometimes large) changes in products are happening all the time!
KInd Regards, John
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,687
- Reaction score
- 2,669
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
It has been stated many times the Part P regulations was really to allow an electrician to work on his own house which is of course DIY. My son and I have a full set of test gear. In theroy that's not enough as we don't get it calibrated but in real terms if it did go out we would soon know. There is nothing wrong with me installing new electrical equipment and testing it but I will hold up my hands I rarely bother actually filling in the certificates for my own house.
Having inspected and tested many times I will look at the reading and know if near the limit. Where I think it's near the limit I will enter the readings into this java script calculator and check if within limits but even then will rarely print the results.
I have seen many schedule of test results which when entered into my calculator fail. Testing and recording the results is useless unless when they don't comply something is done to make them comply.
I am not blameless. I must admit I in the early days would write down all the readings without actually working out if those readings actually complied. One looks at the calculations and to be frank without a java script program to quickly and easy work out if the readings are within the limits it's quite a mammoth task. I still have not updated my program to use the new amendment 3 data although volt drop will normally kick in before ELI.
Earth - Neutral reversal is hard to detect but with RCD protection it is unlikely not to trip the RCD so a simple EZ150 will highlight most faults. OK it does not show the volt drop and clearly there can be faults but it is unlikely with RCD protection and use of a simple EZ150 that there will be any dangerous installations unless there is a design fault.
Using wrong size cable will not be detected by any tester we have to physically see the cable so the EZ150 will not find all faults but in the main it will find those faults likely to cause danger when the installer is following the other recommendations of BS7671.
And it does not really matter if results are written down it's the testing that matters.
Having inspected and tested many times I will look at the reading and know if near the limit. Where I think it's near the limit I will enter the readings into this java script calculator and check if within limits but even then will rarely print the results.
I have seen many schedule of test results which when entered into my calculator fail. Testing and recording the results is useless unless when they don't comply something is done to make them comply.
I am not blameless. I must admit I in the early days would write down all the readings without actually working out if those readings actually complied. One looks at the calculations and to be frank without a java script program to quickly and easy work out if the readings are within the limits it's quite a mammoth task. I still have not updated my program to use the new amendment 3 data although volt drop will normally kick in before ELI.
Earth - Neutral reversal is hard to detect but with RCD protection it is unlikely not to trip the RCD so a simple EZ150 will highlight most faults. OK it does not show the volt drop and clearly there can be faults but it is unlikely with RCD protection and use of a simple EZ150 that there will be any dangerous installations unless there is a design fault.
Using wrong size cable will not be detected by any tester we have to physically see the cable so the EZ150 will not find all faults but in the main it will find those faults likely to cause danger when the installer is following the other recommendations of BS7671.
And it does not really matter if results are written down it's the testing that matters.
Given that these are the Part P regulations, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
Can you elucidate?
Doh!
What I mean is; until last week if I called in an electrician and did not get a MWC, I would not have known any difference. I.e. While I know testing has to be done to ensure safe operation and what it entails, I did not know the customer receives a copy of the results and the details regarding the job.
Last edited:
I've no idea who stated that, but it makes absolutely no sense. Part P applies to any domestic electrical work, regardless of who does it or whose house (s)he does it in.
Kind Regards, John
I'm not certain that BS7671 compliance actually requires that a certificate be handed to the customer, but it certainly requires that the testing should be done (and presumably recorded on an appropriate certificate). If (most unlikley) the testing has been done, a DIYer can complete the cert and then hand it to him/herself!
Kind Regards, John
I have to very shamefully admit that because I don't have a loop tester, When ever I have needed to know Zs in the past, I have calculated it based on a measured R1+R2 + a maximum of 0.8 Ohm for my TN-S earthing system. Not at all acceptable I know, but better than nothing. Will one day get a loop tester and check everything though.
on me.
Mind you, I suppose MWC could always be filled out retrospectively at a later date.
admit that because I don't have a loop tester, When ever I have needed to know Zs in the past, I have calculated it based on a measured R1+R2 + a maximum of 0.8 Ohm for my TN-S earthing system. Not at all acceptable I know, but better than nothing. Will one day get a loop tester and check everything though. on me.Mind you, I suppose MWC could always be filled out retrospectively at a later date.
Last edited:
Like that is ever going to happen!
I didn't think you could invent something that was already invented
In my defence I only answered, in the text used by the OP, to reply to their assumptions. But like it or not the term like for like is used and is going to be continually used, as are downlights.
And when someone decides to make a claim, alleging that you left an installation unsafe. What evidence have you got/given to defend yourself with. I perform tests and issue certs, on everything I do once I have done work on the system, fair enough takes a little more time on the minor jobs, but covers my arse. I even take photos, if I have concerns/issues about the work I am being involved with.
Green book 632.3?
"The person of persons responsible for the design, construction, inspection and testing....... shall, as appropriate, give to the person ordering the work a Certificate........... together with the schedules described in Regulation 632.1"
It seems to me that there would be very few cases where the provision of a Certificate were not appropriate, and therefore it needs to be handed over for the work to comply with the regs. (So no withholding of the certificate pending full payment, as without the certficate the job does not comply, therefore is not complete, so full payment is not due)
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
