Re-test notice dilemma

[Midwest]

I have posted a comment on the draft, to the effect that the committee have lost the plot. Dunno if they will take any notice

 

[westward10]

Our planet will have more holes than a sieve with all these new rods. You will be on the London tube and see them all poking down through the tunnels.

 

[SparkyChick]

I got the impression from a NAPIT webinar that we won't be expected to apply the new rod regs to existing installations.

But we are expected to bring earthing and bonding up to scratch when we do work, so it appears to be yet another area where clarity is needed that probably won't be forth coming.

 

[Octopus]

I got the impression from a NAPIT webinar that we won't be expected to apply the new rod regs to existing installations.

But we are expected to bring earthing and bonding up to scratch when we do work, so it appears to be yet another area where clarity is needed that probably won't be forth coming.

Changes are made for change sake, plus it means new books and revenues for the people who make the decisions and influence things.

One may say it's a clear conflict of interest.....

 

[westward10]

I am reporting the next person who uses the word "webinar"

 

[Ian1981]

Well funny enough I recently watched a webinar (just for you that westward)
And it suggested that we would need to have an Ra value of around 30 ohms for the supplementary earth rod , didn't clarify the reason but must have something to do with touch voltages.
It's was actually Darren Stainforth or whatever his name is doing a live web cam feed from his home on Facebook.

 

[Midwest]

Tis the way forward westward, us singletons have no other way of being informed.

 

[westward10]

Tis the way forward westward, us singletons have no other way of being informed.

I don't mind change as long as everything stays the same.

 

[Midwest]

See I thought Webinair was all part Certsure's NIC & Elecsa conspiracy thing, seems Napit are now part of wrapped up in it. Perhaps Moulder & Sculley had a point?

 

[Midwest]

Off to cook the tea now, might rib Murdoch for posting here every two secs while on hols though, certainly for not going down Summit Plummet, big wimp

 

[Toneyz]

I have always been reluctant to post a re-test notice for small works requiring an EIC/DEIC such as a single new circuit. The reason being that IMO a notice implies to the layman that the entire installation has been inspected/tested when in fact only the aspects pertaining to the small installation have been. With the NICEIC EIC/DEIC forms now requiring a full EICR style tick box list to be filled in for even small works the dilemma arises of ticking the re-test notice box when I haven't provided one.
Do people post a re-test notice on all their jobs or just the jobs that require more extensive testing and inspection than just adding a single circuit?

In an ideal world when an new installation is formed a periodic test sticker is placed at the appropriate position in a domestic situation this will be at the consumer unit this is usually 10 years ,so in 10 years time the occupier would have a EICR and a new sticker would be placed recommending when the next inspection should take place ( before anyone posts yes one could take place in the intervening years) If any work is carried out an appropriate certificate should be issued in the question posted it asks if a periodic notice is present in an ideal world it should be there and the box is therefore ticked.

 

[westward10]

In an ideal world when an new installation is formed a periodic test sticker is placed at the appropriate position in a domestic situation this will be at the consumer unit this is usually 10 years ,so in 10 years time the occupier would have a EICR and a new sticker would be placed recommending when the next inspection should take place ( before anyone posts yes one could take place in the intervening years) If any work is carried out an appropriate certificate should be issued in the question posted it asks if a periodic notice is present in an ideal world it should be there and the box is therefore ticked.

That is a very good way of viewing it.

 

[Midwest]

I googled 'ideal world' expecting some romantic definition, but alas all you get is this rubbish;

Buy for the Home - Craft - Beauty - Fashion - http://www.idealworld.tv/gb/

 

[Midwest]

But music has charms to sooth a savage breast;

 

[Richard Burns]

The way I see it is: BS7671 states that a periodic inspection notice must be applied to an installation on initial verification and updated on each periodic inspection.
Therefore the addition of a circuit is not the initial verification of an installation nor a periodic inspection therefore a periodic inspection notice is not required to be supplied and any existing notice should not be updated.
In the case where there is no notice present and a new circuit has been installed then it should be noted in the condition of the existing installation - no periodic notice is present.
In the checklist there is no requirement under the work you are doing to provide a periodic notice and so the tick box should be marked N/A.

I would say though that I do tend to tick the box if a notice is present (hmm, not very often in domestic), I must train myself out of assuming the tick list should be completely filled in no matter what you are doing, the check list only applies to the work you are doing and anything not applicable to that work should be N/A, you do not need to check it, verify it or tick it.

 

[Toneyz]

I have always been reluctant to post a re-test notice for small works requiring an EIC/DEIC such as a single new circuit. The reason being that IMO a notice implies to the layman that the entire installation has been inspected/tested when in fact only the aspects pertaining to the small installation have been. With the NICEIC EIC/DEIC forms now requiring a full EICR style tick box list to be filled in for even small works the dilemma arises of ticking the re-test notice box when I haven't provided one.
Do people post a re-test notice on all their jobs or just the jobs that require more extensive testing and inspection than just adding a single circuit?

In an ideal world when an new installation is formed a periodic test sticker is placed at the appropriate position in a domestic situation this will be at the consumer unit this is usually 10 years ,so in 10 years time the occupier would have a EICR and a new sticker would be placed recommending when the next inspection should take place ( before anyone posts yes one could take place in the intervening years) If any work is carried out an appropriate certificate should be issued in the question posted it asks if a periodic notice is present in an ideal world it should be there and the box is therefore ticked.

The way I see it is: BS7671 states that a periodic inspection notice must be applied to an installation on initial verification and updated on each periodic inspection.
Therefore the addition of a circuit is not the initial verification of an installation nor a periodic inspection therefore a periodic inspection notice is not required to be supplied and any existing notice should not be updated.
In the case where there is no notice present and a new circuit has been installed then it should be noted in the condition of the existing installation - no periodic notice is present.
In the checklist there is no requirement under the work you are doing to provide a periodic notice and so the tick box should be marked N/A.

I would say though that I do tend to tick the box if a notice is present (hmm, not very often in domestic), I must train myself out of assuming the tick list should be completely filled in no matter what you are doing, the check list only applies to the work you are doing and anything not applicable to that work should be N/A, you do not need to check it, verify it or tick it.

Totally agree this was the point that I was trying to make you just concluded it better than me.

 

[Richard Burns]

Totally agree this was the point that I was trying to make you just concluded it better than me.

I just plagiarised your post to make it look like I knew what I was talking about!!

 

[Midwest]

PS don't forget your Euro Millions tonite 32m

Fishing Euro Millions

 

[Risteard]

All new works whether a new installation or additional circuit(s) or minor works are electrical installation works requiring initial verification so I cannot agree with Richard Burns' post that the label isn't required - it's in black and white in BS7671 that it is.

 

[Toneyz]

All new works whether a new installation or additional circuit(s) or minor works are electrical installation works requiring initial verification so I cannot agree with Richard Burns' post that the label isn't required - it's in black and white in BS7671 that it is.

It should already have one if every time additional circuit(s) or minor works took place the distribution board/consumer unit could be covered with them.