Part P & Testing

[CLB]

Hi,
I've been asked to go and test an installation that hasn't been signed off by the sparky who did the work. He's disappeared apparently.
My question is this:
I am not 2391 but I am Full Scope Part P 17th Edition, so I can test work I've installed myself and issue certification for it, but my understanding of Part P is that I can also make changes to a CU after which I am required to do a full test and issue certs.
Would I be correct in assuming I can test the installation if I make changes to the CU (ie, disconnect the meter tails as I'll have to do a Zs/Ze test anyway) and then proceed to test the entire installation?

 

[telectrix]

i assume you will be carrying out a EICR. as long as you are competent to do this, then go ahead.

 

[Guest111]

Just make sure you do a thorough test,it,s one thing signing off a job you have done but another to sign off someone else's, as you go through your checks you may find there is a good reason the original spark "disappeared"

 

[CLB]

Just make sure you do a thorough test,it,s one thing signing off a job you have done but another to sign off someone else's, as you go through your checks you may find there is a good reason the original spark "disappeared"

I shall treat it like I would if I had done the install myself. I'm a thorough, methodical type of person anyway so it will get the full inspection. My concern was more to do with the legalities of not holding a 2391 certificate. There does seem to be some grey areas between 2391 and Part P.

 

[Des 56]

Hi,
I've been asked to go and test an installation that hasn't been signed off by the sparky who did the work. He's disappeared apparently.
My question is this:
I am not 2391 but I am Full Scope Part P 17th Edition, so I can test work I've installed myself and issue certification for it, but my understanding of Part P is that I can also make changes to a CU after which I am required to do a full test and issue certs.
Would I be correct in assuming I can test the installation if I make changes to the CU (ie, disconnect the meter tails as I'll have to do a Zs/Ze test anyway) and then proceed to test the entire installation?

Why disconnect the tails ?

It seems you are looking at a means to do some sort of work that would then enable you to issue an EIC maybe to satisfy an awkward situation for the customer

I would recommended to carry out an EICR,do not not become responsible for another persons installation standards

Just saw your reply after i posted
quote
I'm a thorough, methodical type of person anyway so it will get the full inspection
That I am sorry to say,will be nigh on impossible unless the first fix was inspected previously

having 2391 has nothing to do with being able to carry out an EICR

 

[CLB]

I'm trying to understand if I am legally certified to inspect and test this installation under Part P.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Yes, but only produce an EI Condition Report, not an EI Certificate.

 

[telectrix]

as above. you won't be able to ascertain all the cable routes, if they are in safe zones, etc. so a EICR is the way to go. and you don't need 2391. that would help if the brown stuff hit the fan for any reason, as it shows that you have passed the qual.

 

[KAS1]

It's all in GN3

 

[ruston]

Inspecting the installation is not an obligation to produce a satisfactory report . Report on it as you find it , do not consider any pressure to "pass it" , if this is the ulterior motive walk away.

 

[CLB]

Inspecting the installation is not an obligation to produce a satisfactory report . Report on it as you find it , do not consider any pressure to "pass it" , if this is the ulterior motive walk away.

The householder is trying to sell the property and without an Installation Certificate he's having trouble getting it on the market. I'm not going to issue anything if it doesn't comply with the regs. Basically, he's been shafted by the original sparly who's buggered off. I know I can't channel the walls out and see if the cables are mechanically protected if they're not buried 50mm deep in the walls and I won't be able to lift the floorboards and inspect the cables under it. I will point out that although he's paid his money it's unfortunate that he hasn't been given the certs he's entitled to but if I find something that needs rectifying I won't be doing it for free. It's then up to him how he wants to proceed.
I don't know the circumstances of why the original sparky has disappeared but I suspect he hasn't done the tests he should have so he doesn't have the readings to issue the certs. I feel sorry for both the builder and the homeowner and they've both been shafted by this rogue sparky. Thanks for you input guys, I now know what I can and cannot do, I just wanted to check to be sure.

 

[MDJ]

You cannot certify someone elses work, you can only inspect it and advise the customer of your findings by way of an EICR

 

[telectrix]

you can do an EIC, but then you are putting your name as responsible for the quality of the install.

 

[MDJ]

If you were NICEIC certified and did an EIC for someone elses work they would kick you out, well for a week until they realised you are money to them haha, seriously though I don't think you can certify someone elses work.

 

[whitestu]

The householder is trying to sell the property and without an Installation Certificate he's having trouble getting it on the market.

Read more: http://www.electriciansforums.net/e...tions/70397-part-p-testing.html#ixzz2HxxYOGmd

You don't need any electrical certification to get a house on the market or to sell it. It may be the case that some buyers won't go through with a sale on a property with uncertified work, but they are probably more likely to haggle on price given that the vast majority of houses have no, or only limited certification of the electrical installation.

 

[KAS1]

To many cowboys they just take the money and run, he could still be asking question on this site for his next job lol QUOTE=CLB;687886]The householder is trying to sell the property and without an Installation Certificate he's having trouble getting it on the market. I'm not going to issue anything if it doesn't comply with the regs. Basically, he's been shafted by the original sparly who's buggered off. I know I can't channel the walls out and see if the cables are mechanically protected if they're not buried 50mm deep in the walls and I won't be able to lift the floorboards and inspect the cables under it. I will point out that although he's paid his money it's unfortunate that he hasn't been given the certs he's entitled to but if I find something that needs rectifying I won't be doing it for free. It's then up to him how he wants to proceed.
I don't know the circumstances of why the original sparky has disappeared but I suspect he hasn't done the tests he should have so he doesn't have the readings to issue the certs. I feel sorry for both the builder and the homeowner and they've both been shafted by this rogue sparky. Thanks for you input guys, I now know what I can and cannot do, I just wanted to check to be sure.[/QUOTE]

 

[ruston]

The householder is trying to sell the property and without an Installation Certificate he's having trouble getting it on the market. I'm not going to issue anything if it doesn't comply with the regs. Basically, he's been shafted by the original sparly who's buggered off. I know I can't channel the walls out and see if the cables are mechanically protected if they're not buried 50mm deep in the walls and I won't be able to lift the floorboards and inspect the cables under it. I will point out that although he's paid his money it's unfortunate that he hasn't been given the certs he's entitled to but if I find something that needs rectifying I won't be doing it for free. It's then up to him how he wants to proceed.
I don't know the circumstances of why the original sparky has disappeared but I suspect he hasn't done the tests he should have so he doesn't have the readings to issue the certs. I feel sorry for both the builder and the homeowner and they've both been shafted by this rogue sparky. Thanks for you input guys, I now know what I can and cannot do, I just wanted to check to be sure.

If you test it and it is satisfactory, then a surveyor or parties concerned may accept this as evidence of compliance with BS7671. If they are trying to satisfy Building control , this could be a different matter.

If you know you are competent then, as has been said you do not need 2391 to do an eicr, just go ahead and test it and report on what you find .The outcome of your results is up to the person ordering the work to sort out.

 

[KAS1]

A lot of people are getting refused a mortgage on properties without the correct certs

You don't need any electrical certification to get a house on the market or to sell it. It may be the case that some buyers won't go through with a sale on a property with uncertified work, but they are probably more likely to haggle on price given that the vast majority of houses have no, or only limited certification of the electrical installation.

 

[ruston]

A lot of people are getting refused a mortgage on properties without the correct certs

Originally Posted by whitestu
You don't need any electrical certification to get a house on the market or to sell it. It may be the case that some buyers won't go through with a sale on a property with uncertified work, but they are probably more likely to haggle on price given that the vast majority of houses have no, or only limited certification of the electrical installation.




Both statements here are accurate , a lot of estate agent and buyers are asking for all the relevant certificates now though.

 

[Geoffsd]

You will need (or best to have) Professional Indemnity Insurance as opposed to Public Liability Insurance for your own work.

 

[CLB]

You will need (or best to have) Professional Indemnity Insurance as opposed to Public Liability Insurance for your own work.

I'm Elecsa registered and their stipulation was for £2m of public liability ins. which is what I've got.

 

[bigbaddave]

I'm Elecsa registered and their stipulation was for £2m of public liability ins. which is what I've got.

Thats you call then, However there is not a hope in hell id be issuing a EIC for somebody else's work. For Example. What would happen if the cables are not in the correct zones and the next homeowner puts a nail through the cable the RCD fails and they die.. Your signing to say its your work and if it end up in court well..

I know this is the worst case scenario but as i say i will allways only give a cert for work i have done. I did do a unfinished house once where everything had been wired, Just required second fix and board and test. Issued EIC however clearly stated that the existing wiring was already there and therefore only responsible for the work i have installed

 

[CLB]

Thats you call then, However there is not a hope in hell id be issuing a EIC for somebody else's work. For Example. What would happen if the cables are not in the correct zones and the next homeowner puts a nail through the cable the RCD fails and they die.. Your signing to say its your work and if it end up in court well..

I know this is the worst case scenario but as i say i will allways only give a cert for work i have done. I did do a unfinished house once where everything had been wired, Just required second fix and board and test. Issued EIC however clearly stated that the existing wiring was already there and therefore only responsible for the work i have installed

That's what I'm thinking tbh. It won't do the homeowner any good for me to go and give him an EICR if he needs and Installation Cert. I'm not putting my rep on the line for someone else's work. I'll have to advise him he needs a 2391 sparks to test & inspect it who can give him the cert he needs.
Time to walk away from this one methinks.

 

[Rampantchilli]

You DO NOT NEED 2391 to issue ANY certificates

 

[CLB]

You DO NOT NEED 2391 to issue ANY certificates

Even if it's for someone else's work you haven't overseen? That was my understanding of what 2391 was/is.

 

[chrish_1977]

Part P & Testing

I think you should have 2391 to issue certs (here goes the cat amongst the pigeons) IMO of course

 

[Geoffsd]

Re: Part P & Testing

I think you should have 2391 to issue certs (here goes the cat amongst the pigeons) IMO of course

Yes, you 'should' - but you don't.


CLB - As for insurance -

Elecsa require you to have PL to 'join' (or be allowed to pay).

But you need PI to cover you doing EICRs.

 

[Rampantchilli]

Even if it's for someone else's work you haven't overseen? That was my understanding of what 2391 was/is.

not even for that, in fact im currently awaiting for my assessment for Qualified Supervisor, for which i only need my 17th ed cert not even my 2391, i couldnt understand that at all, as ill be counter signing around 40-60 certs a week

 

[Heisenberg]

I'm Elecsa registered and their stipulation was for £2m of public liability ins. which is what I've got.

That will only cover you for things like somebody tripping over your toolbag and breaking their neck. What Geoff is referring to is to cover you from being sued due to giving out poor advice or not actually doing the job properly. Given that, you may find it hard to get a decent quote if you intend on doing EICRs and don't have a 2391 or it's replacement equivalent. No insurer is going to cover you if all they have to go on is you saying you are competent, they will want to see something concrete.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Part P does not cover inspecting and testing.
Part P only covers electrical installation work.
Napit only insist that you have public liability, I assume because you are a member of their Part P scheme, which by virtue of being Part P does not cover Inspections and Testing of existing installations.
However I feel fairly certain that if you were to join their scheme for Insprction and Testing, they would insist you have professional indemnity.

 

[Heisenberg]

Part P does not cover inspecting and testing.
Part P only covers electrical installation work.
Napit only insist that you have public liability, I assume because you are a member of their Part P scheme, which by virtue of being Part P does not cover Inspections and Testing of existing installations.
However I feel fairly certain that if you were to join their scheme for Insprction and Testing, they would insist you have professional indemnity.

The OP is with Elecsa, not Napit. However, you are correct, Napit want you to have 250k worth of indemnity and have your 2391 or equiv, if you want to test and inspect.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I don't know where I got Napit from?

 

[CLB]

Ok, I'm totally confused now. From what's been said, one doesn't need to be 2391 to do an inspection & test on an installation one hasn't overseen or installed, but 17th Edition isn't enough to be able to issue an EIC on that same install either???
If the original sparky who installed the cabling etc isn't available for whatever reason, who can issue the EIC in his place?

 

[Des 56]

Ok, I'm totally confused now. From what's been said, one doesn't need to be 2391 to do an inspection & test on an installation one hasn't overseen or installed, but 17th Edition isn't enough to be able to issue an EIC on that same install either???
If the original sparky who installed the cabling etc isn't available for whatever reason, who can issue the EIC in his place?

Sorry CLB,but you don't seem to be accepting the basic fact that it is the installing electrician who issues an EIC

No one may issue the EIC for another companies installation,therefore you can offer, "to who it may concern" an EICR

In order to carry out the EICR you need no qualification,but the customer or Labc or whoever is involved in the problem may insist that someone who can demonstrate competence,possibly by using a schemes paperwork,only those persons can issue an acceptable EICR

 

[Heisenberg]

Can't help but think that the change of name from PIR to EICR has added to the confusion that some people seem to have.

 

[Geoffsd]

At least we don't connect pieces of paper to outside lights anymore.

 

[Steve_P]

I think most people get this question on a regular basis. There really are only a limited number of answers to the customer/estate agent/solicitor.

1. You can have an EICR (was PIR) but NOT an EIC
2. Track down the original spark and get them to issue the EIC.
3. Buy indemnity insurance for the electrical work.

 

[MDJ]

Can't help but think that the change of name from PIR to EICR has added to the confusion that some people seem to have.

yep agree, they only did it so they could change the certificates and rip us off, I buy dozens of pads and then they change them LMAO, these guys in suites making decisions.

 

[valleybilly]

Come across this afew times , Builder/client slagging the spark only to find later its the spark who's been done over with unpaid extra work and therefor refusing to issue certs which he's perfectly entitled to under the Elecsa banner anyway , I'd do the job but wait till there funds had cleared before releasing any documentation they want .


PS , you dont need to remove meter tails to do Ze / Zs lol

 

[CLB]

Come across this afew times , Builder/client slagging the spark only to find later its the spark who's been done over with unpaid extra work and therefor refusing to issue certs which he's perfectly entitled to under the Elecsa banner anyway , I'd do the job but wait till there funds had cleared before releasing any documentation they want .


PS , you dont need to remove meter tails to do Ze / Zs lol

In this instance though, the sparks has been paid and he's ****ed off to another part of the country to work there. He's not answering any calls from the builder but he's known to be working.
There must be a procedure in place for someone else to issue an EIC if the original sparks has disappeared, or died, or left the industry, or is just plain refusing to do it. It's not that I'm not accepting it, if that's the rules then that's the rules and I'll do an EICR and that will have to suffice until such time that the building is rewired again and a new EIC can be issued properly. I just wanted ot know if there is ANY instance where an EIC can be issued by anyone other than the person who did the work. It appears not.

 

[Geoffsd]

There must be a procedure in place for someone else to issue an EIC

How many more times? NO.
You can only issue an EIC for your own work.
If there is a way for you to class this installation as your own work then let us know.

if the original sparks has disappeared, or died, or left the industry, or is just plain refusing to do it. It's not that I'm not accepting it, if that's the rules then that's the rules and I'll do an EICR

Good.

and that will have to suffice until such time that the building is rewired again and a new EIC can be issued properly.

Yes, I suppose.

I just wanted ot know if there is ANY instance where an EIC can be issued by anyone other than the person who did the work. It appears not.

NO. What difference does it make to you?

 

[CLB]

How many more times? NO.
You can only issue an EIC for your own work.
If there is a way for you to class this installation as your own work then let us know.


Good.


Yes, I suppose.


NO. What difference does it make to you?

It makes the difference whether I issue an EIC or not. Ta.

 

[MDJ]

We have told you in a friendly manner you cannot certify someone elses work and issue a EIC as if it was your own work, you can only test it and issue A EICR, a report, not a certifcation, what do you want from us?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I believe that some LABCs will in these sorts of circumstances, arrange for a 3 signature EIC to be issued.
Obviously whoever id inspecting the installation would sign for the I&T, but as for who would sign for design and construction, I do not know.
Perhaps the builder?

 

[CLB]

We have told you in a friendly manner you cannot certify someone elses work and issue a EIC as if it was your own work, you can only test it and issue A EICR, a report, not a certifcation, what do you want from us?

I didn't much care for Geoffs condescending attitude. Everyone else has been very helpful. I asked a question and got good answers from 99% of those who responded, for which I am grateful. At the end of the thread I wanted to clarify a point of confusion I had and that too has been answered.
And thanks also to spinlondon for his informative reply.

 

[MDJ]

Well if you got what you wanted from the thread then alls well that ends well then, still disagree though, have a nice day anyhow, all the best.