NAPIT Certification Scheme NAPIT Inspection Schedules

[BlueToBits]

I came across a NAPIT PIR the other day. The Inspection schedule did not follow the model in BS7671. It was a very poor copy and could have been someones' own design, as at least one item was listed twice, and some items seemed to be missing. It used inconsistent grammar and it listed items for inspection items that were outside the scope of BS7671. Is this the way it is supposed to be?

 

[Electricalserv]

This is the official Napit PIR sheet. (An example) Where are the mistakes?

http://www.napitonline.com/downloads/Periodic%20Report%20Sample.pdf

 

[IQ Electrical]

I came across a NAPIT PIR the other day. The Inspection schedule did not follow the model in BS7671. It was a very poor copy and could have been someones' own design, as at least one item was listed twice, and some items seemed to be missing. It used inconsistent grammar and it listed items for inspection items that were outside the scope of BS7671. Is this the way it is supposed to be?

The example that Electricalserv has posted is fully compliant, remember that the model forms only represent a minimum requirement and the schemes all have their own (far better in my opinion) interpretation.

 

[BlueToBits]

I'm far from being an expert in English language but here are a few examples I don't understand :

These two requirements seem to be the same thing to me:
Protective Bonding Conductors securely connected and a warning label fitted
Protective Bonding securely connected and a warning label fitted if required
Why does this need to be listed twice?

Where is the check for "Insulation of live parts"? This seems pretty important to me as any failure of this requirement would almost certainly warrant a code 1

Some lines are questions, some are statements or headings, some are sentences, some are none of these. Bracketing is sometimes used and capitalisation is at best irregular.

Why should an inspection report carried out to BS7671 as declared in section C, need to comply with requirements that are outside the scope of this standard? for example, why is it a defect of BS7671 if accessories are not "neatly aligned"? Why should a check for compliance with Approved Document M be necessary, and not any other Approved Document?
How far beyond the scope of BS7671 should a PIR go?

 

[Electricalserv]

I'm far from being an expert in English language but here are a few examples I don't understand :

These two requirements seem to be the same thing to me:
Protective Bonding Conductors securely connected and a warning label fitted
Protective Bonding securely connected and a warning label fitted if required
Why does this need to be listed twice?

Where is the check for "Insulation of live parts"? This seems pretty important to me as any failure of this requirement would almost certainly warrant a code 1

Some lines are questions, some are statements or headings, some are sentences, some are none of these. Bracketing is sometimes used and capitalisation is at best irregular.

Why should an inspection report carried out to BS7671 as declared in section C, need to comply with requirements that are outside the scope of this standard? for example, why is it a defect of BS7671 if accessories are not "neatly aligned"? Why should a check for compliance with Approved Document M be necessary, and not any other Approved Document?
How far beyond the scope of BS7671 should a PIR go?

have you got an niceic example?

 

[BlueToBits]

It is the same as the model in the back of the regs

 

[IQ Electrical]

I'm far from being an expert in English language but here are a few examples I don't understand :

These two requirements seem to be the same thing to me:
Protective Bonding Conductors securely connected and a warning label fitted
Protective Bonding securely connected and a warning label fitted if required
Why does this need to be listed twice?

Where is the check for "Insulation of live parts"? This seems pretty important to me as any failure of this requirement would almost certainly warrant a code 1

Some lines are questions, some are statements or headings, some are sentences, some are none of these. Bracketing is sometimes used and capitalisation is at best irregular.

Why should an inspection report carried out to BS7671 as declared in section C, need to comply with requirements that are outside the scope of this standard? for example, why is it a defect of BS7671 if accessories are not "neatly aligned"? Why should a check for compliance with Approved Document M be necessary, and not any other Approved Document?
How far beyond the scope of BS7671 should a PIR go?

I agree, the protective bonding duplicate is obviously a mistake.

I also agree on the 'Insulation of Live Parts', this is a very important inspection item and NAPIT should have spotted this (assuming this is a current version).

The schedule does mention building fabric (structure) and building fabric (fire) which I suppose is a nod to Documents 'A' and 'B', 'M' being mentioned separately.

Incorrectly aligned accessories etc. do not deviate from BS7671:2008 but to be fair, the NAPIT report has the provision for a 'Code 5' which is attributed to 'comments'.

In the interests of clarity, I have to say that of all the scheme providers documents, I like the NAPIT one the least and that's purely due to the fact that it appears more confusing to 'non technical' readers than the others.

It'll be interesting to see what the providers go with as far as the forthcoming EICR document is concerned, I believe the final layout will be made available to them this month.

 

[BlueToBits]

Thanks. I suppose it is pretty irrelevent with the imminent changes looming, At least I now know it was a genuine report.

 

[Sparky Ninja]

I think the two protective bonding conductors and labels inspections refer to one for ADS and another for additional protection.

I too am unfamiliar with NAPIT certs, and much prefer others out there.


Will be interesting to see if they've made it easier to understand with the EICR

 

[topquark]

Is there a copy of the new EICR that we could view IQ?

Edit: I see there's some editable PDF copies here http://www.electriciansforums.net/i...ations/29798-new-eicr-editable-pdf-certs.html

Are these up to date?

 

[Sparky Ninja]

They look up to the requirements that were given by the IET a while back.

Weather any changes occur with the templates in BS7671 amendment 1 since, is yet to be seen.

 

[IQ Electrical]

There's a big change to the schedule of inspections, I've got a draft of the new Guidance Note 3 but even that might have changed now.

 

[topquark]

A couple of minor comments on the schedule of test results for the installation. There is no 0.5x RCD result column, RCDs/RCBOs should not normally operate under these conditions, but could (and would be a failure if it did). Should we not also have a column for function test performed (just a tick box for each circuit)?

 

[Electricalserv]

A couple of minor comments on the schedule of test results for the installation. There is no 0.5x RCD result column, RCDs/RCBOs should not normally operate under these conditions, but could (and would be a failure if it did). Should we not have a column for function test performed (just a tick box for each circuit)?

Good pointer on the half trip!!! Also think functional test would be good aswell especially for PIR's

 

[BlueToBits]

Is there a copy of the new EICR that we could view IQ?

Edit: I see there's some editable PDF copies here http://www.electriciansforums.net/i...ations/29798-new-eicr-editable-pdf-certs.html

Are these up to date?

Wow! Almost the entire regs as an inspection schedule.