accessory change certification

[roadrunner]

we have been doing maintanance and accassional installation work for a local housing society for quite a while and have never done a certificate for a accessory like for like change ,ie socket light switch etc .however the association are saying that unless evidence can be submitted to say the contray they want a certificate.this will mean cost implications to us as we are screwed down to the bone as it is.i had a chat about this a few years ago to an niceic inspector and the general assumption was although perhaps a zs test and rcd test if applicable were in order there was not a need to certificate what was a maintance change.i'm wondering if anybody nows where i can find further clarification of this? thanks in advance

 

[trev]

You should be covering these changes with a minor works cert mate. If nothing else it keeps your butt covered should anything go wrong on the installation at a later date. Prove what you have done and it was safe when you left the job.

 

[brucelee]

for like for like accessories then its not needed but as trev says would be a benefit to prove you had done everything correctly

 

[trev]

I thought even like for like had to be covered by a MWC.

 

[roadrunner]

profit on schedule rates is negligable believe me, time lost doing certificates for a socket for example is the difference between breaking even and making a loss over a days work.

 

[trev]

profit on schedule rates is negligable believe me, time lost doing certificates for a socket for example is the difference between breaking even and making a loss over a days work.

True, but if you're doing the tests anyway 10 minutes writing up a MWC isn't going to cripple you surely. Plus as I said earlier, If anything goes wrong at a later date your butt is covered.
Sorry if you think I'm nitpicking here

 

[roadrunner]

trev you are not nitpicking but taking into consideration travelling between jobs we dont get 10mins to do the work i kid you not

 

[trev]

I know your situation mate I've been there but if it's the only way you're going to get paid then you could always explain it to them and say Ok a cert is going to cost you £X more per job. Not an ideal response I know but you never know it might work

 

[trev]

I  know your situation mate I've been there but if it's the only way you're going to get paid then you could always explain it to them and say Ok a cert is going to cost you £X more per job. Not an ideal response I know but you never know it might work

 

[i=p/u]

your not changing the circuit charicteristics so no cert is required between you and i and rest of us, but if they want one they should pay for 1 as you have to have test sheets , time to do them and testing equipment to calabrate....

 

[Short Circuit]

I agree with i=p/u - i wouldnt do one for that kind of work. i had a similar problem a few months ago and sent the customer a copy of the scope from the Notes on completion of Minor Works part of GN3. Once he read that, he was happy. I am sure this has been raised on a thread before where the best option was to add Zs at that accessory to the invoice when you send it.

GN 3 does say 'This form may also be used for replacement of equipment such as accessories or luminaires' - to me that means it doesnt have to!

 

[malcolmsanford]

Could you not as Short circuit suggest put a set of results onto an invoice.

You could set up a system where the guys could email via phone/laptop the results into the office and when you invoice the client add the results to it.

 

[Octopus]

Could you not as Short circuit suggest put a set of results onto an invoice.

You could set up a system where the guys could email via phone/laptop the results into the office and when you invoice the client add the results to it.

I've certainly shown/stated the EFLI test result on an invoice - and never been asked what it is!!

 

[richy3333]

I'm not sure about this issue with Minor works certs and not issuing them - makes me feel uneasy. If you have done the I&T before re-energising (as we are supposed to) then you have the results to write down. So why not. I can fill in a handwritten/carbonated MW in a couple of minutes.

I've emailed the IET to ask for clarification on the subject, but when I asked the NICEIC for their opinion it was that a MW cert should be issued for work not requiring an EIC etc.

GN3 is just that a guidance to BRB.

610.6 On completion of the verification, according to Regulations 610.1 to 610.5, a certificate shall be prepared.

The 'may' context appears in 631.3 and is there to say a MW cert may be used 'as an alternative to an EIC', not that an electrician may, or may not (as they see fit) issue a MW cert if they consider it appropriate to do so.

Just my 10 cents view

 

[malcolmsanford]

Richy but that reg goes on to say a Circuit that as been altered or extended, by replacing an accessory with the same then you are not doing either of this and so not needing a MIEWC

I agree I always issued a MEIWC for an accessory replacement, but this was more so that it looked professional for the client and it also gave them a reminder if they needed anymore work doing, as my name and contact details were on it.

I know that if I was fixing a broken socket in a family or friends house then they would not be getting a MEIWC done.

 

[R&M]

There is only two absolute situation:
1- The job is to be certified. (Addition, alteration, etc.)>>> You can not ask for extra charge to issue certificate, it is your duty to do.
2- The job is NOT required any certification.(Maintenance, Like for like replacement, etc.) >>> You do not issue any.

PS: Like for like change of accessories do not require certification but in GN3 it states under 2.2: "The certificate (MEIWC) may also be used for the replacement of equipment such as accessories or luminaries." It is your professional judgement, to issue one or not. If you think you have to, then there shouldn't be an extra charge for that.
Good luck mate.

Regards
Ramin

 

[richy3333]

Hi Malc.
Thanks for your input as I greatly appreciate your learned comments.

In my head it comes down to grammar and interpretation. I appreciate what a lot of electricians do and how they justify it, but purely looking at the wording, I interpret things differently.

I see even a like-forlike replacement as an alteration. It might be the same make, model of (for example) pendant light fitting, but it isn't the same one that was originally there, so a change has taken place or an as the BRB calls it an 'alteration'.

Thanks for your comments R&M. The clarification given in GN3 (2.2) I see (although I appreciate others see things differently) in no way obviates the need to complete a MWC. I still interpret the use of the word 'may' as telling you to use a MWC for accessory or luminaire changes rather than an EIC.

It's just my personal view that if BS7671 allowed situations where certs were not required for types of work completed, it would be explicitly stated/listed as other topics are (e.g. situations where RCD protection is not required).

I think an electrician could be criticised heavily by a judge if something went wrong - 'you did the work, did the testing, so why didn't you issue a certificate'?