Minor Works Certificate – Details of Departures from BS7671?

[kill the witch]

Don't forget that this is a domestic installation so is not covered by EAWR 1989.

I have no idea where you're getting that idea from. Chr!s is correct. It does cover all aspects of electrical work. Read Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 Regulation 3 (1)(a).

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes it would be in force while the installation work was in progress.
Once the installation work was completed it would no longer apply.

 

[SW1970]

Bit of an old thread being dragged up but the new Contactum CP range RCBOs are compatible with the older boards by the use of an adaptor that TLC sells. There's only just enough room at the top for cabling on the larger main units, I think not enough room on the garage size units.

 

[JamesBrownLive]

A couple of interesting points have been raised here but there are obviously some conflicting views that need clarification.

Some have said that compliance can be attained by fitting a RCD FCU and spuring the socket off that, one person said that you would need to add RCD protection to all the existing sockets on the ring (via changing the sockets themselves to the type that incorporates an RCD) but what is most interesting, is that neither or those proposed solutions was suggested by the NICEIC bloke who was doing the assessment.

I guess what it boils down to is whether or not you interpret the rules to mean that if you add a socket to a cct, then you have to bring the entire cct up to current standards. It seems from what this particular assessor has stated that he falls squarely in that camp.

Clearly though, some people don't believe this is the case and just fit an RCD FCU and spur.

I'd just like to know the definitive answer.

Cheers

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I guess it's open to interpretation.
In the introduction of BS7671, the second chapter states:
"The Regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations. Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."
How would you interpret this chapter?
Then there are Regulations 632.4:
"Defects or ommissions revealed during inspection and testing of the installation work covered by the Certificate shall be made good before the Certificate is issued"
and 633.2:
"The contractor or other person responsible for the new work, or a person authorized to act on their behalf, shall record on the Electrical Installation Certificate or the Minor Electrical Installation Worcks Certificate, any defects found, so far as is reasonably practicable, in the existing installation."
If we are required to upgrade the existing installation, why would there be a requirement to record any defects found?

Why would we be required to record defects or ommissions in the existing installation, if we are required to upgrade the existing installation?
Especially as we are required to make good any defects or ommissions before issuing the Certificate.

 

[JamesBrownLive]

You're spot on Spin, but in this case the OPs interpretation has cost him an additional £450, ouch.
I guess this proves you just need to be real careful with any jobs that you use as examples of workmanship, come assessment time.

So which camp to you fall in... Do you believe that adding an additional socket to a cct means you need to bring the entire cct up to regs, or only the socket you are presently installing?

Cheers

 

[Richard Burns]

One problem you have here is the use of the words "installation work" as a means of putting things in place and "installation" as the electrical system for the property (or the circuit).

When installing an additional spur socket you are only installing a length of cable, back box and socket face plate. One could then say that this is the installation to which the certificate refers and so only defects or omissions in the bit you installed (e.g. wrong polarity at that socket) must be put right.

However in order to test and inspect this section that you have installed, your testing must cover the rest of that circuit, at the minimum. It would not really be possible to only inspect that new cable and socket and state that it was compliant as you may have a broken ring etc. in the rest of the circuit.
So you may then find defects or omissions in the rest of the circuit, which, as they were determined during inspection and testing, should be put right.

Again if you are looking at the CU and see there are no RCDs and there is another domestic socket circuit, ahh is this part of an inspection? should it be put right! I think here this is not an inspection just an observation and would not need upgrading only noting as a defect of the existing installation on the certificate.

Overall I tend to think that any installation work done involves the whole circuit which has been modified and that this circuit should be to the standard of the current regulations. But practicality may intervene and say it is only the small section on which I am working that needs compliance, but may be difficult to justify.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Richard, would a broken Ring affect the safety of the additional spur?
Would a broken Ring affect whether the additional spur complied with the Regulations?

 

[Richard Burns]

Spin, This was just an example; but if you had a non continuous ring then you would have installed a spur on a series of spurs, as it is not designed as a radial circuit, and you would then be in non compliance with the regulations as a non fused spur must only have one socket outlet and you could have many (although I would say that that socket would be safe you could well overload the cable for the whole circuit depending on where the break was.)

 

[SW1970]

When I test rings I always test L and N on the figure of eight right after L and CPC. It's a bit belt and braces but the risks involved in broken ring finals scares the hell out of me.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Spin, This was just an example; but if you had a non continuous ring then you would have installed a spur on a series of spurs, as it is not designed as a radial circuit, and you would then be in non compliance with the regulations as a non fused spur must only have one socket outlet and you could have many (although I would say that that socket would be safe you could well overload the cable for the whole circuit depending on where the break was.)

So the addition itself, would not comply, and you would either have to fix the Ring, or down rate the CPD.
Would lack of RCD protection to existing socket-outlets, or existing cables concealed in walls affect the safety of the spur, or whether the spur complied?

 

[Risteard]

"The contractor or other person responsible for the new work, or a person authorized to act on their behalf, shall record on the Electrical Installation Certificate or the Minor Electrical Installation Worcks Certificate, any defects found, so far as is reasonably practicable, in the existing installation."
If we are required to upgrade the existing installation, why would there be a requirement to record any defects found?

To me I would read that as the circuit which you are certifying by means of a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate must comply with the Regulations as they currently stand. You are also required to note any defects which you have noticed during the course of the installation work. These defects therefore will not apply to the circuit you are certifying but to other parts of the installation. You don't need to go out of your way looking for defects but if you notice them then there is a duty of care to report that to the client.

That's my reading of it anyway.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Would you be certifying the circuit, or would you just be certifying the addition?
If you were for instance to change a socket-outlet for whatever reason, would you then have to ensure the rest of the circuit complied with current Regulations?

 

[Richard Burns]

Spin
"So the addition itself, would not comply, and you would either have to fix the Ring, or down rate the CPD." Yes
If you were to install the spur as an RCD socket, then the socket would comply, but if the cable you installed were in the wall, then that cable would not comply, easiest to provide an RCD at the origin of the circuit, though presumably if you were considering it was just the bit you did that needed to comply then you could install an RCD at the point were you took the spur out of the ring!

 

[Richard Burns]

post 33 I would say you would be certifying the design and construction and inspection of the addition were OK and the testing of the circuit was OK. Because I would not expect to fully assess the existing wiring for safe zones, etc. only to perform the testing on the circuit and ensure that complies.

 

[Risteard]

If you were for instance to change a socket-outlet for whatever reason, would you then have to ensure the rest of the circuit complied with current Regulations?

Presuming you are referring to a like-for-like change then this would be maintenance work, and a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate would not be required, and as such you would not be required to certify compliance with BS 7671 in its current form.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Seems the thread is getting a going off in different tangents.
I'll try to put my point of view, and cover all the tangents.
The introduction indicates that existing installations do not have to be upgraded if they complied with earlier editions.
We are required to assess the installation before making any addition or alteration, to ensure that the rating and condition of existing equipment is adequate for the altered circumstances. To my mind, adequate does not mean 'comply with current Regulations'.
We are required during construction and on completion of an addition or alteration, to inspect and test to verify that the requirements of the Regulation have been met.
We are further required to issue appropriate certification. I am not aware that maintenance is excluded from these requirements.
We are required when certifying an addition or alteration, to note any defects (where reasonably practicable) in the existing installation.
The existing cables and accessories of a circuit would to my mind be part of the existing installation.
We are required to rectify any defects or omissions found in the work that the certificate relates to, before issuing the certification.
I do not see that this requires us to rectify any defects in the existing circuit, especially as we are required to note any defects on the certificate.

 

[Risteard]

Fair enough, and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are wrong. Simply that I would interpret the requirements differently. Must have a look over the Guidance Notes etc. to see if they shed any light on the intentions of JPEL/64 (whilst acknowledging, of course, that they are simply an opinion and do not take the place of BS 7671).

 

[Richard Burns]

Seems the thread is getting a going off in different tangents.
I'll try to put my point of view, and cover all the tangents.
The introduction indicates that existing installations do not have to be upgraded if they complied with earlier editions. Yes no problem
We are required to assess the installation before making any addition or alteration, to ensure that the rating and condition of existing equipment is adequate for the altered circumstances. To my mind, adequate does not mean 'comply with current Regulations'. I would agree with this
We are required during construction and on completion of an addition or alteration, to inspect and test to verify that the requirements of the Regulation have been met. Yes
We are further required to issue appropriate certification. I am not aware that maintenance is excluded from these requirements. Need the certification. I agree that BS7671 does not exclude this for maintenance (the word "may" is a bit unclear) however Part P guidance specifically states BS7671 does not require this only recommends.
We are required when certifying an addition or alteration, to note any defects (where reasonably practicable) in the existing installation. Yes
The existing cables and accessories of a circuit would to my mind be part of the existing installation.
Initially certainly, and certainly not designed or installed by you only modified.
We are required to rectify any defects or omissions found in the work that the certificate relates to, before issuing the certification. Yes for the work to which the certificate relates (but how do you separate an addition from the circuit it is attached to, particularly in testing?)
I do not see that this requires us to rectify any defects in the existing circuit, especially as we are required to note any defects on the certificate. Ah hmm Need to rectify defects in the existing circuit that would cause the addition to fail compliance and need to ensure existing circuit is adequate.

You raise some interesting points there and have made me re read the regulations (I am currently referring to AMD1 because it is available). I think that you are right there, to comply with the requirements of the regulations you would need to ensure that the circuit containing the modification was adequate for the intended use of the modification and that the circuit allowed the modification to comply with BS7671 (current) but I would normally try to rectify any defects in a circuit that I have added to, where practicable. Although I would not route cables or change cables (for csa) so I would not necessarily be making the existing circuit up to BS7671.
Oh, I have changed my view on this!, I am quite surprised!

 

[JamesBrownLive]

Do you not think the RCD situation is kinda unique? The regs are not retroactive, everyone knows that, but the case of providing RCD protection almost seems to be an exception to that.

As adding sockets to existing circuits is quite a common job, this is a situation that everyone is going to be faced with. As I said earlier, in the case of the OP, his assessor gave advice that indicated he considered that the whole cct needed to be protected, not just the new spur.

This certainly seems to be one of those situations whereby the customer is going to think that they are being taken for a ride, especially if their current setup, ccu wise, precludes the addition of RCDs or RCBOs. What started out as a relatively minor addition, now looks like a board change is required.