Lack of Minor Works Certificate with DIY'ers?

[ericmark]

OK we had the top of range Robin PAT tester which put the results onto a floppy disk and this was then uploaded onto the computer. However it relied on us putting in our code before starting for it to show correct name of person testing. And the software did not allow us to alter the name. So get around was to have a code for "code not set" which we could enter after testing so anyone using tester after did not have the test in your name if they forgot to enter their code.

However mistakes were often made and I needed to correct so I wrote a simple Visual Basic program to allow me to correct errors. However this also resulted in the fact I could alter records to show some one else other than myself had tested a faulty item. So the result was all tests were printed in the simple form with around 20 tests to page and the pages were signed by the tester.

So how can you produce a test system which allows correction of a genuine mistake yet does not allow altering. Clearly you can't. There was nothing to stop a PAT tester with 6 desk lamps from testing the same one 6 times so in the end it still relies on trust.

In the linked case the foreman trusted his worker to take the readings but the worker clearly made an error in taking them or some other error took place. It is possible some tests were made before the plasters fixing damaged the cable. So the court looks at all the paperwork and decides who was at fault. In that case the foreman was at fault for trusting some one who the court thought was not well enough trained.

 

[JohnW2]

So how can you produce a test system which allows correction of a genuine mistake yet does not allow altering. Clearly you can't.

As BAS has said, if one wanted to go to such extremes, one could address that particular issue by having sufficiently robust tamper-proof audit logs and operator/location etc. identification. It would not prevent the correction of genuine errors, but the changes made would be stored, together with the date and time of the changes, the identity of the person making the changes (maybe verified by fingerprint or retinal image) and the GPS location at the time the changes were made. However, such things would surely be OTT.

There was nothing to stop a PAT tester with 6 desk lamps from testing the same one 6 times so in the end it still relies on trust.

Indeed - and, as I keep saying, any such system which 'relies on trust' must, if it is to be taken seriously, be 'policed'. I think I've reported before that three or four years ago, I was intercepted by a 'MOT station inspector' as I left a MOT place having just had my MOTd. He asked if he could 're-inspect' my vehicle. Given the inclination and resources, a similar system could be applied to self-certified electrical work. There would obviously be a limit to what could be 'checked' (e.g. inaccessible wiring etc. couldn't be inspected), but it would certainly, IMO, be a step in the right direction.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I do agree the idea of there is no one to catch me out so I can do what I want as long as it's not bad enough to cause HSE to be called is clearly flawed.
However we are talking about DIY so not really down to blatant disregard to safety but more down to.
1) Cost
2) Ability
3) Equipment
To my mind using the simple EZ150 at a cost of £50 together with use of RCD protection on all circuits tests 95% of likely faults. It is of course down to the user to work out if the results are acceptable. My problem like most other electricians I have never used an EZ150 so no real idea on how easy to use in practice.

However the other problem is the Minor works certificate and installation certificate are designed to have a reading entered not a go/no go series of lights. We have Kewtech, Socket&See as well as the Martindale EZ150 who make the plug in testers with a loop test.

The kewtech LoopCheck 107 and Socket&See SOK 34 and 36 have just three lights but the Martindale EZ150 has double colours so 6 levels shown. The Socket&See SOK 36 does have a 30 mA RCD tester although no readout of time.

At 0 ~ 1.7 ~ 5 ~ 10 ~ 100 ~ 200 ~ 500Ω steps the Martindale EZ150 does allow for both TN and TT systems and although 1.7Ω may not pass it is close enough not to really matter.

So how about the next step. How about a Minor Works Certificate built around the cheap plug in tester and multi-meter to guide the DIY guy or girl through a reasonable safe test procedure?

Clearly what we want is for the DIY person to buy a full test set but being more reasonable what would be a reasonable level of test and could we as a group actually formulate a DIY electrics test sheet which if followed would highlight most DIY faults?

The problem with any test sheet is it is easy to miss something. But with a core of electricians to proof read I am sure we can between us work out a test sheet which if followed will ensure the DIY job is unlikely to be dangerous.

So next is the how? Using Java Script one could I am sure turn it into a question and answer sheet.

So for example to add an extra socket.
1) Is the MCB/RCBO larger than 20A.
If yes
2) Is the cable 2.5mm² or 4mm².
If 2.5mm² then are there two or one cables supplying.
etc.

From working out if TN or TT to working out if radial, ring, fused spur or unfused spur we should be able to design a sequence of tests which will show how to proceed and if safe. The filling out of Minor Works, Installation, or Condition sheets give us a procedure to follow so we don't miss any tests. But to ask a DIY person to state what the prospective short circuit current will be is rather useless. I can just imagine him there with a multi-meter and the current which tripped the RCD when it fell out of the bun in the toaster trying the measure it's resistance.

So how about it. Can we as a team produce a DIY Minor works Certificate based around the EZ150 for the DIY man to complete?

 

[JohnW2]

However we are talking about DIY ... To my mind using the simple EZ150 at a cost of £50 together with use of RCD protection on all circuits tests 95% of likely faults.

Certainly a lot better than nothing - as you say, it will detect most significant faults.

It is of course down to the user to work out if the results are acceptable. ... However the other problem is the Minor works certificate and installation certificate are designed to have a reading entered not a go/no go series of lights. ... At 0 ~ 1.7 ~ 5 ~ 10 ~ 100 ~ 200 ~ 500Ω steps the Martindale EZ150 does allow for both TN and TT systems and although 1.7Ω may not pass it is close enough not to really matter.

Although the forms are obviously designed to have exact numerical measurements recorded, they could obviously be used to record results obtained by using 'lesser' test equipment. Unless the results were being used in relation to notifiable work (in which case the testing and recording of results would obviously have to be done properly, and by someone acceptable to LABC), the MWC or EIC is going to be pretty irrelevant, and probably never not looked at it in any detail by anyone. Even when one comes to sell a house, all one is asked is to produce certificates, regardless of what is written on them, and by whom. Provided that 'reasonable tests' are undertaken, and yield satisfactory results, (which is what matters) a DIYer would usually only be 'ticking the boxes' by completing an MWC or EIC and handing it to him/herself.

... could we as a group actually formulate a DIY electrics test sheet which if followed would highlight most DIY faults? ... Using Java Script one could I am sure turn it into a question and answer sheet. ...

I would imagine that, with some good reason, BAS would probably have something to say about a "I & T by numbers" (without the need for any understanding) approach that you appear to be suggesting.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have started a new thread here as with 4 pages of replies likely this one will not be visited that much.

I think the whole idea is to make DIY safer and sticking ones head in the sand and simply saying if they can't test then they should not do the work is counter productive.

Lets see the response.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think the whole idea is to make driving safer and sticking ones head in the sand and simply saying if they can't afford to take a driving test then they should not drive is counter productive.

 

[plugwash]

The thing is with driving the government made a hard and fast rule that everyone who bought their first driving license after a given date had to take a driving test and gradually increased what was tested. They backed up that rule with enforcement.

With electrics they did no such thing, they just passed a law saying "reasonable provision" and left everyone to guess what that meant, especially with regards to non-notifiable work (with notifiable work you had the situation that you had to convince building control that what you had done was "reasonable"). In the absense of strong government signals to the contary people are going to make the assumption that carrying on as they had been is reasonable. Nothing we can do is going to convince diyers that it's unreasonable to add a socket without spending hundreds of pounds on test gear first.

Given that environment I think it's counterproductive to refuse to help people. If we drive people off then they will either continue without advice or will go look for advice somewhere where the posters are more receptive to helping them.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the whole idea is to make DIY safer and sticking ones head in the sand and simply saying if they can't test then they should not do the work is counter productive.

I think most of (with at least one notable exceptions) us agree with that, which is why few of us (again, with at least one notable exception) say that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Given that environment I think it's counterproductive to refuse to help people.

It is not productive, or decent, or responsible, or morally correct, to give people who are working outwith their competence ANYTHING which encourages or facilitates them continuing their foolishness.

If we drive people off then they will either continue without advice or will go look for advice somewhere where the posters are more receptive to helping them.

Encouraging or facilitating people to do things they are not competent to do is not helping them.

 

[ericmark]

Thousands of years ago when I first tried to connect two 6 volt bulbs to my train sets rails of different wattage and one went pop I started to learn about electrics and I have never stopped learning. I had like many DIY'ers thought I knew what I was doing and at around 6 years old I got my first lecture from my dad explaining volts, amps and watts and basics of ohms law. At around 10 I found that sticking fingers into a bulb holder with no bulb was not a good idea. By time I started my apprenticeship I already had a good working knowledge but in the late 1960's test equipment was a bulb with a length of

wire. It was a case of going into the office and asking for any better test device and college was ones only contact with items like the AVO Mk7 and 8 it was early 80's before I had my own. As to insulation tester it was mid 80's and loop impedance tester late 90's and only with BS7671:2001 was the idea of having a special RCD tester.

Now we are telling the DIY guy he should not be doing what most electricians did every day when I started. In college we would talk and yes some firms were clearly better than others, but mine was clearly not the worst.

OK I will admit some things have changed 7/029 would take more current than 2.5mm² and we had a 30A fuse not a 32A MCB so the chance of overloading cables was less than today. But we all started somewhere and the idea that people can't learn is daft.

As to things going wrong burnt out cables in the main this was 55-0-55 or 63 volt when 3 phase where it should have all been done by electricians with no DIY allowed. I have seen where a 1.5mm² cable was protected with a 41 amp trip well it was 10A at 230 volt which means 41 amp at 55 volt. And this was designed by the transformer manufacturers who clearly should no better and we worry about DIY?

We all know DIY people will do it what ever we say so at least reduce the risk as much as we can. What I noted was on building sites it was not the time served electricians who would try to stop anyone else doing electric work it was always the electricians mates who had been given a card when the system started and seemed frightened that anyone in the future should get the same chance to get into the trade. They could install cables until cows came home but ask them to use ohms law and they were stumped.

I remember one installing a 110 volt ring final he just had no idea that for the ring final to work the plugs needed fuses in them. He had seen one using this type of plug

Untitled

• ericmark
• 23 Apr 2015
• 2

and didn't seem to realise the standard yellow plug needed 16A MCB's so how can we really criticise the DIY man when there are so many chances calling themselves electricians?

 

[JohnW2]

As to insulation tester it was mid 80's ....

I had (may still have it, somewhere!) a 'Megger' in the mid-60s, but it was a bit of a pain having to wind the handle to generate the test voltage!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Yes we did have one, but kept locked up maybe because I thought it was funny testing the resistance between a coconut mat and the vice, which were normally connected together by some human body?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

how can we really criticise the DIY man when there are so many chances calling themselves electricians?

How can we criticise the driver doing 40mph in a 30mph zone when there are uninsured dis/un-qualified people calling themselves drivers doing 60mph?

 

[scousespark]

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.

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.

And it does not really matter if results are written down it's the testing that matters.

Point 1 - I have never seen any statement that Part P is intended to allow electricians to work on their own house. Pre 2005, there was nothing stopping us doing that.

Point 2 - Do you really think that testing and checking is a mammoth task? Especially when the job is covered by an MWC.

Point 3 - Given you have stated you have lots of testing experience, how can you then say recording the results doesn't matter?

 

[ericmark]

Point 1 - I have never seen any statement that Part P is intended to allow electricians to work on their own house. Pre 2005, there was nothing stopping us doing that.

When I came to do my mothers wet room it was made very clear that unless we could show we had the required skill we would not be allowed to do all the work our selves. We would be required to pay for some one to do some of the work for us. May be I did not use the correct English but my point is ordinary people since Part P have not been allowed to test their own work.

Point 2 - Do you really think that testing and checking is a mammoth task? Especially when the job is covered by an MWC.

I do as it is not only the MWC but all the pre-testing and inspecting before the work starts. I tried to list out what needs testing and each time I read through my list I realised I had missed some thing. We do it as second nature we do not consider it as testing or inspecting but in real terms it is. We check it is a ring, we check fuse size, we check cable size, we note where it is likely running and work out if ring, radial or spur without really thinking about it. The MWC is only filled in when we complete the work but the inspection and testing starts well before that point. It is like when at school we had to write out instructions to make tea. We could all make tea but everyone missed some part.

Point 3 - Given you have stated you have lots of testing experience, how can you then say recording the results doesn't matter?

I will admit under health and safety law and report made about a fault must be in writing. If you see an oil spill telling some one on the phone is not good enough but sending a SMS is. Reports about anything unsafe must be in writing.

However if you inspect and test and find every thing A1 then there is no law to say you must write it down. When the LABC inspect and test they do not issue an installation certificate all they issue is a completion certificate they do not provide a record of their results.

Even following BS7671 the testing and inspecting are given to the person ordering the work so with DIY you give it to yourself. As a result because the results are not given to anyone but yourself then as long as you do test there is no real reason why you should write down the results.

However my point is it's the testing which matters not the writing down of the results. However out meters do not give a simple pass or fail. If we measure the PSCC at the consumer unit and see it is 657 A and then we measure at the mid point of a ring final and get 240 A will that pass? We know we are permitted 5% volt drop but it requires calculations to convert that to volts OK not so hard to work out 11.5 volt but we have not put a 26 A load mid point of ring to measure volt drop we have the ohms or amps which the meter gives us and this is cold so we have a complex calculation to see if it passes.

Personally I use a PDA at first with excel and now with java script to work out the limits. It have default values for Cg and Ca and works out the Ct for me. When you have worked it out enough times just like the old 1.44Ω value you get to know the limits of by heart.

But look at a MWC and know where does it ask for the mid point PSCC to be entered it may ask for ELI but that's line ~ earth and with RCD protection that can be sky high. It's the PSCC which shows us the volt drop and it's the volt drop which limits us to 106 meters of cable.

For a 16A MCB I would need to look at the limit. OK with my program it does not take long to find the PSCC limit is 173 amps below that the volt drop is too great but because I don't install many 16A radials I have to work it out. Without the java script program to work out the correction factor I would need some paper and a calculator I am not good enough at maths to work it out in my head. So yes I will write down the results either into my PDA or onto paper but that's because I not that good at maths and my slide rule is not accurate enough.

So assuming 0.35Ω loop impedance on a TN-C-S incomer which is 657 amp what will be the pass reading centre point of ring using a meter giving PSCC between line and neutral? Allowing for the correction factor. Your the one who makes out it's easy.