Minor work certificate

[Tomtom]

Hi there,
Quick question about a MWC. What is the general practice in case you do an addition to an existing RFC, in this case adding 4 spot lights in bathroom to a radial first floor light circuit or adding a socket to a what is supposed to be ring final. But then you realise there are some issues with the existing wirring. For example the light circuit insulation resistance too low and the ring final circuit appears to be a radial sharing a 30amp MCB with another ring final circuit. The customer refuses to pay for any extra works like finding the reason for the low insulation resistance or putting the 2.5mm radial on 20amp MCB.
Would the best practice be to refuse issuing a MWC or would you do a certificate noting the issues?
Thanks for the advice!

 

[westward10]

Said this many times, test first or repent later. What is the low IR reading.

 

[Andy78]

132.16. (I think)
The existing installation and equipment shall be verified as suitable for the alteration before work takes place.

If you've not included for possible extra work in your quote then you've left the installation with a non compliant alteration. All alterations should be tested and have a certificate issued. Not issuing a cert is not an option. You might have to swallow this one and make it suitable at your own cost.

 

[radiohead]

Whilst a MW certificate allows for defects to an existing installation to be noted this would not include defects affecting the safety of the altered circuit. If you've altered a circuit you have to leave it compliant.
As above, next time verify the suitability of a circuit for alteration BEFORE starting work.
This time you'll have to rectify at your own expense.

 

[davesparks]

Would the best practice be to refuse issuing a MWC or would you do a certificate noting the issues?
Thanks for the advice!

The only thing you can do is not start the job in this situation.
Or if you have already done the job then fix the problems at your cost and learn from the experience for next time.

 

[Tomtom]

Thanks a lot to all who took the time to respond to my question. Appreciate it. It helps to hear the opinion of experienced professionals and I agree with the comments.
Best

 

[westward10]

What is the insulation reading for the lighting circuit.

 

[happysteve]

"Dear [client],

Thanks for getting in touch...

[details about the quote/work]

As a formality, I attach my standard Terms of Business, this includes information on your Right to Cancel.

Any work I do will comply with the latest edition of the Wiring Regs, testing will be done and certificates issued. I will need to make sure that the circuit(s) being extended meet(s) the minimum requirements of the Regs, in terms of RCD protection, insulation resistance, continuity of conductors etc, and earthing and bonding needs to be present - any quotes would be subject to these things all being satisfactory. I’ll test all these things before the job starts and if not satisfactory I’ll give you options about how to proceed before doing any work, and if you decide not to go ahead at this point then that’s fine.

If you're happy with the above, and attached, please let me know, and I'll be happy to book you in.

Love and kisses,
Happysteve xx"

 

[Jako13!]

I know this is an old post but relevant to a question I think is relevant. If you are testing the circuit before carrying out the work so you’ve disconnected conductors to test continuity and then realise the circuit isn’t right you are then the last person touching the circuit. Does that mean you have to put it right? Or re instate as long as it’s not immediately dangerous?

 

[SparkyChick]

I would argue that 'touching' in this context is only applicable if you have made significant changes to the fixed wiring... i.e. taking a socket off and doing some testing is not a significant change to the fixed wiring and therefore you've not changed anything.

You could say the same thing about carrying out EICR's, which are typically far more invasive than testing a single circuit ahead of changes. By this I mean, you could find a C2 issue, but you just report it and the client has to take action to address it.

Clearly if you found something that was immediately dangerous then you'd have to have a conversation with the client about how they would like to proceed. If for example it was non-continuous ring conductors... if there was no thermal damage evident then I'd probably just tell them about it and state quite clearly that my estimate will include some time to try and locate/rectify the issue and how things could proceed if we weren't able to.

 

[Jako13!]

I would argue that 'touching' in this context is only applicable if you have made significant changes to the fixed wiring... i.e. taking a socket off and doing some testing is not a significant change to the fixed wiring and therefore you've not changed anything.

You could say the same thing about carrying out EICR's, which are typically far more invasive than testing a single circuit ahead of changes. By this I mean, you could find a C2 issue, but you just report it and the client has to take action to address it.

Clearly if you found something that was immediately dangerous then you'd have to have a conversation with the client about how they would like to proceed. If for example it was non-continuous ring conductors... if there was no thermal damage evident then I'd probably just tell them about it and state quite clearly that my estimate will include some time to try and locate/rectify the issue and how things could proceed if we weren't able to.

I’ve always struggled to get my head round this in a maintenance background as who’s responsibility is it. So if no alterations are carried out on the circuit just testing disconnected cables- realising that circut would warrant a C2 if periodic inspection was being carried out- then you energise the circuit. Does the responsibility then lay with you?