Why issue an Electrical Installation Certificate?

[SgtTrojan]

Scenario:
Regulation 631.1 states that "Upon completion of an new installation or changes to an existing installation, an Electrical Installation Certificate,.... shall be provided" A consumer unit change is a significant change to an installation so would require an Electrical Installation Certificate.

Question:
Why does an Electrical Installation Certificate have to be issued? Does the installer ensure that all cabling in walls and under floors are correctly installed? Is is sufficient to cover the hidden cable/s under the "Extent of the installation covered by this certificate"? Wouldn't a Periodic Inspection Report be more appropriate to cover these "extent and limitations" and any "observations and recommendations". What if there are broken sockets found in the building? Is it sufficient to report "comments on existing installation" or would the issue of an Periodic Inspection Certificate be more appropriate to report such findings?

 

[dingbat]

A consumer unit change is a significant change to an installation so would require an Electrical Installation Certificate.

Question:
Why does an Electrical Installation Certificate have to be issued?

132.13 plus the regulation you stated. (631.1)

Does the installer ensure that all cabling in walls and under floors are correctly installed? Is is sufficient to cover the hidden cable/s under the "Extent of the installation covered by this certificate"?

You've answered your own question. Why not use the wording from the PIR 'Extent & Limitations' box: "Cables concealed [within] the fabric of the building [have] not been inspected."?

Wouldn't a Periodic Inspection Report be more appropriate to cover these "extent and limitations" and any "observations and recommendations".

If you wish.

What if there are broken sockets found in the building? Is it sufficient to report "comments on existing installation"

110.1 (xx) and 131.8 and the question: By 'broken' do you mean non-functioning, or do you mean dangerous?

or would the issue of an Periodic Inspection Certificate be more appropriate to report such findings?

Your call.
Prior to carrying out work, 131.8 requires that you assess the rating and condition of existing equipment.
Some installations may well warrant a full periodic inspection and test beforehand. Many will not.

 

[ricicle]

Just fill in the 'extent of installation covered by this certificate' part as 'consumer unit change only'.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

its a good job you didn't post that on the IET forum, I think you'd be looking at at least a 20 page arguement

You issue a cert for the work which is done, so if the work is 'change CU' then thats the limit of the scope of that cert.

Obviously, if you just 'change cu' then its not reasonably practicable to check that all (or any)concealed cables are in the correct place, (safe zones, passing through joists etc). This could be noted on the EIC to make it clear to anyone who may think otherwise.
OTOH It may well be reasonably practicable to to ensure that a ring is a ring and check IR values.
There is also a section on the EIC to make note of defects found (check 633.2)

"Wouldn't a periodic be more...." Again, IMO thats another never-ending arguement, some say PIR whole house before CU change, some don't, some say, suck it and see, some people do some limited testing based on a number of various factors. It down to the competent person to make the decision on what happens and how.

I'm off now, i shall check back once the cut/paste frenzy begins

 

[SgtTrojan]

633.2 Answers this for me. If defects are found an EIC can still be issued. The main thing is that it should not be confused with an Initial Verification.

Thank you for your thoughts fellas.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Shall we explore the interesting situation whereby if you are doing the I&T part of the 3-signature EIC, and you find things that do not comply, the Notes on the Schedule Of Inspections prevent you from certifying that you carried out the I&T with reasonable skill and care and, to the best of your knowledge and belief, in accordance with the Wiring Regulations and that you found these things wrong with what had been installed......

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's only "contradictory nonsense and being totally ridiculous" if you decide to ignore the words "so far as is reasonably practicable".

One might almost regard such perverse ignoring as being part of a totally ridiculous plan to wilfully interpret the regulations in a way which creates grounds for criticising them for being contradictory nonsense and totally ridiculous....

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Shall we explore the interesting situation whereby if you are doing the I&T part of the 3-signature EIC, and you find things that do not comply,

Whats 'interesting' unless you have done something incorrect on the new work then everything complies. All a cu change would require is testing of rcd's. And a statement regarding status of main equipotential bonding.

Sorry - I meant a more generic situation, of work which requires an EIC, and different people do the design, installation & verification.

the Notes on the Schedule Of Inspections prevent you from certifying that you carried out the I&T with reasonable skill and care and, to the best of your knowledge and belief, in accordance with the Wiring Regulations and that you found these things wrong with what had been installed......

No they don't, any defects and test results for the existing installation would be listed on a PIR.

BRBBF, Page 334, note 1, 'The EIC is to be used only for the initial verification of a new installation or for an addition or alteration to an existing installation where new circuits have been introduced.'

So that's what I'm talking about.

Someone else has designed/installed, you come along to inspect & test.

You find that what the someone else did does not comply with the regulations.

You may not certify that the work you did, i.e. the I&T complied with BS 7671 because you're not allowed to say on the schedule of inspections that the work done by the someone else did not comply.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BRBBF, Page 334, note 1, 'The EIC is to be used only for the initial verification of a new installation or for an addition or alteration to an existing installation where new circuits have been introduced.'

633.2 'The contractor................shall record on the EIC or the MEIWC, any defects found, so far as is reasonably practicable, in the existing installation.'

Ignoring your drivel, please explain how the above statements do not contradict. And also take into account that the note is a clarification ie the IET's second shot at explaining themselves.

They only contradict if you decide on an utterly daft interpretation of 633.2.

So you go to this 20 storey office block to put in a new cu and some lighting in the bike shed. After you have finshed you then proceed to inspect the every floor and plantroom of the office block.

If you'd put a new CU and lighting in the bike shed why on earth would you think that a regulation saying "The contractor................shall record on the EIC or the MEIWC, any defects found, so far as is reasonably practicable, in the existing installation" required you to then inspect every floor and plant room of the office block and thus was a regulation to be ignored due to contradictory nonsense and being totally ridiculous?

Also, in my bike shed/office scenario, what is not 'reasonably practcable' about walking around the office block looking for defects.

Everything.

I'm not saying looking above ceilings or underfloors just obvious in your face defects. Thats what 633.2 says you should do, and thats why it is ridiculous nonsense.

It only says that inside your bizarre imaginings.

The funniest thing is, why do my correct interpretations of various nonsense regs wind you up so much. Were you involved in writing them?

They aren't correct, they are contradictory nonsense and totally ridiculous.