Replacement of downlights & switches in bathroom and living areas - requires minor work certificate?

[Murdochcat]

Most bathroom lights are out of zones and take no more consideration than any other light as per the regs.

which is irrelevant.

 

[pete01]

For what reason would someone not want to issue a minor works certificate?

It takes about 10 minutes to fill out.

 

[JohnW2]

I am having downlights replaced in the bathroom (directly above bathtub) and living areas, including the switches that control the lights. I have asked for minor work certificate for the work, but the electrician says certificate is not required because it's not alteration. Is this correct?

I'm not sure that I agree with your electrician. Any electrical work (particularly if done for money, by an 'electrician') should result in some sort of certificate, whether a minor works one or an EIC, as appropriate.

 

[JohnW2]

He's under no obligation to test given the scope of work though

I'm not sure that I agree with that, either - although it obviously depends upon what you mean by "under obligation" (there's obviously no explicit legal 'obligation' to test).. Although, as we know, many/most DIYers are not equipped to do much testing, electricians (or 'electricians') certainly should be, and any electrical work should really be 'tested'.

 

[Risteard]

I'm not sure that I agree with your electrician. Any electrical work (particularly if done for money, by an 'electrician') should result in some sort of certificate, whether a minor works one or an EIC, as appropriate.

There is no requirement for like-for-like replacements. Appropriate inspection and testing should, of course, be carried out. (Likely just an EFLI test for many straight replacements, plus RCD as appropriate.)

Hundreds and hundreds of extra certificates won't add anything.

 

[EFLImpudence]

There is no requirement for like-for-like replacements.

Nowhere in the regulations is 'like for like' mentioned; just 'replacement'.

Appropriate inspection and testing should, of course, be carried out. (Likely just an EFLI test for many straight replacements, plus RCD as appropriate.)

Then why would you not record the results and give a copy to the customer?

Hundreds and hundreds of extra certificates won't add anything.

Maybe they would instill confidence in your work for the customers.

 

[JohnW2]

There is no requirement for like-for-like replacements.

Indeed - but I don't think that phrase has been used in this discussion.

In any event, I don't imagine that you would, for example, suggest that there was "no requirement" (for a certificate to be issued) in the case of, say, a "like for like replacement" of a CU, would you?

Appropriate inspection and testing should, of course, be carried out.

Quite so - but, as has been said, if you undertake tests, you surely should record and 'provide' the results, shouldn't you?

Hundreds and hundreds of extra certificates won't add anything.

See above. With a certificate, how would anyone but you even know that tests had been done?

 

[ericmark]

It takes seconds to plug in, and press button, little longer with lights as wandering leads not a simple plug, but since 1966 except for pendent lamps, lights have required an earth, and it is common for 12 volt to be replaced with 230 volt, resulting in an earth requirement which was not there when originally installed, so with down lights there is a need for testing, as three core cable does not mean they are earthed. I have actually plugged in my tester just to get a picture . The only reason for not testing is lack of test equipment, in which case should not be doing the work.

Nowhere in the regulations is 'like for like' mentioned; just 'replacement'.

Yes noted, and it is so easy for the replacement not to be like for like, pre-1966 one could use filament lamp in a pendent, with some other requirements as well without an earth. Today, even if a filament lamp, it would not be as the regulation intended.
#18 and #19 by @JohnW2 is very true, seem to remember the phrase was warrantee of skill, and to not test the electrician is not showing a warrantee of skill even if the BS7671 does not say he must, however it says "610.1 Every installation shall, during erection and on completion before being put into service, be inspected and tested" it continues, but to comply with BS7671 no question it must be inspected and tested.

And to work in a bathroom on needs either to be a scheme member, or use the LABC, and if a scheme member you have signed to say you will follow BS7671, so to be able to find a domestic electrician who is not a scheme member would be rare.

 

[JohnW2]

And to work in a bathroom on needs either to be a scheme member, or use the LABC ...

At least in England, that's only true of work on ceiling lights if the the ceiling is less than 2.25m above floor level - which I think is is relatively unusual.

.... and if a scheme member you have signed to say you will follow BS7671, so to be able to find a domestic electrician who is not a scheme member would be rare.

I'm not sure what "following BS7671" has got to do with anything - the work being discussed here (replacement of downlights) is surely very unlikely to NOT be compliant with BS7671, regardless of whether or not the person doing it is a 'scheme member'?

 

[ericmark]

It will not be compliant if the inspection and testing is not done. And with a shower "the position of the shower head where it is attached to a wall or ceiling at a point higher than 2.25 metres from that level; and ceiling at a point higher than 2.25 metres from that level;" I know my shower is high enough up the wall to include the whole room. There is not 2.25 meters from shower head to ceiling.

Although if not a shower then yes 2.25 meters from finished floor level.

I must admit, seems odd the picture does not follow the text.

It seems down to what one considers "that level" refers to? It seems to me to refer to where the shower is attached.

 

[JohnW2]

It will not be compliant if the inspection and testing is not done.

Sure, but that's true of any electrical work, notifiable or not - and if it's not notifiable, there is no specific need to have the work undertaklen by "a scheme member who has signed to say that they will follow BS7671".

And with a shower ...

We're not talking about showers, but ....

.... "the position of the shower head where it is attached to a wall or ceiling at a point higher than 2.25 metres from that level; and ceiling at a point higher than 2.25 metres from that level;" I know my shower is high enough up the wall to include the whole room. There is not 2.25 meters from shower head to ceiling.

It's surely obvious that it's not talking about 2.25m between shower head and ceiling, isn't it? A room would have to be well over 4 metres high for that to be the case, and there can be almost no rooms in domestic properties that are that high!

Although if not a shower then yes 2.25 meters from finished floor level. .... I must admit, seems odd the picture ........ does not follow the text. It seems down to what one considers "that level" refers to? It seems to me to refer to where the shower is attached.

As above, you're interpretation would seem to be pretty ridiculous, even for BS7671