Re-test notice dilemma

[Deleted member 9648]

I have always been reluctant to post a re-test notice for small works requiring an EIC/DEIC such as a single new circuit. The reason being that IMO a notice implies to the layman that the entire installation has been inspected/tested when in fact only the aspects pertaining to the small installation have been. With the NICEIC EIC/DEIC forms now requiring a full EICR style tick box list to be filled in for even small works the dilemma arises of ticking the re-test notice box when I haven't provided one.
Do people post a re-test notice on all their jobs or just the jobs that require more extensive testing and inspection than just adding a single circuit?

 

[SparkyChick]

I only post a re-test notice where I'm responsible for a test of the whole installation, so a CU change or an EICR.

I recently did some remedials following a bad EICR (the report was wrong in various areas, but overall the installation seemed in good condition), the original report suggested a re-test in 1 year. The testing I carried out (which tied up largely with the report) gave no indication of why such a short period was required, but it wasn't (IMHO) good enough to suggest a 10 year, so in my report I suggested that I would have required a 5 year inspection, but I didn't put a sticker on... and come to think of it, I don't recall seeing a sticker from the EICR, but that's not surprising based on the supposed issues they found and their suggested solutions.

 

[Delboybully]

When I put in a new circuit or circuits but am not testing the whole installation I put on a retest test sticker and label the circuit or circuits it applies to.

For example, yesterday I put power into a shed. On the retest I put shed only.

 

[The Ghost]

Use another form instead of NICEIC forms. Installing a new circuit imo, means you are responsible for that circuit. Accepted you will not install a circuit without having ensured the installation you are adding to is adequate and bonding/earthing arrangements are satisfactory. However I would resist being pushed in to the direction of effectively certificating the whole installation and would tend to note something to the effect that although inspection has proved to be adequate for the circuit there are limitations, effectively limited to the circuit installed. NIC eh! they seem to make it up as they go along. Very borderline on the legal implications of what you are certifying or taking responsibility for which is not good enough.

 

[westward10]

As stated above, under "Date of last inspection" put in brackets after the date the applicable circuits. Under "Recommended date of next inspection" you could base it on the last inspection date if available, the next inspection date may not correspond with 5 or 10 years from your works but this has been a previous recommendation. If there is no next recommendation date take an assessment of when you feel this should take place not necessarily 5 / 10 years from your date as the whole installation will need testing.

 

[Midwest]

I don't think NIC are to blame, their EIC would be based on the model forms provided in BS7671. The EIC in BS7671, has a section 'Next Inspection', if that is what this thread is about?

When constructing such an EIC for a new single circuit (or multiples of), the circuits not worked on (or tested), can be identified as 'Not Worked ON', as suggested by Delboy.

 

[Risteard]

By not using a next inspection label near the origin of the installation (even for minor works) you are failing to comply with BS7671. It's not an optional thing.

 

[Octopus]

BS 7671 is not a statutory document ........

 

[Midwest]

By not using a next inspection label near the origin of the installation (even for minor works) you are failing to comply with BS7671. It's not an optional thing.

You can always, just cross out the original date, and ink in the new on.

 

[Midwest]

BS 7671 is not a statutory document ........

Near Summit Plummet?

 

[Octopus]

Near Summit Plummet?

Lazy last day, still in bed, then the pool becons ...... Until later when my son and I are going to a muscle car event.

need a holiday now...

 

[Deleted member 9648]

OK, thanks for that. I might well go with the suggestion of noting on the label what it applies to. I do realise it is a requirement to provide a label, but feel it would be far better if the requirement applied only where a new installation has been fully tested, or a satisfactory EICR has been issued.
I still think it is misleading where an install has only been partially inspected.

 

[Octopus]

The labels on fuse boards are a joke imho.

 

[Midwest]

OK, thanks for that. I might well go with the suggestion of noting on the label what it applies to. I do realise it is a requirement to provide a label, but feel it would be far better if the requirement applied only where a new installation has been fully tested, or a satisfactory EICR has been issued.
I still think it is misleading where an install has only been partially inspected.

I agree with you wirepuller; some feel that BS7671 is there in black & white with no ambiguity. Personally, I think its full of holes and that it hasn't to be blindly followed to the letter, as its not a coverall for everything.

If I fit a socket for Mrs Miggans, according to BS7671, I'm required to upgrade the bonding where required. And as from the 18th, I going to start whacking in earth rods in her flower beds as well. Think 'they' are starting to lose the plot. Perhaps 'they' should have a rethink on reg 134.1.1 first.

 

[westward10]

Yes the earth rod part will open up a whole can of worms think the forum may require a new section.

 

[Octopus]

Yes the earth rod part will open up a whole can of worms think the forum may require a new section.

It will certainly upset a few worms when they get rodded .....

 

[Risteard]

BS 7671 is not a statutory document ........

I don't recall suggesting that it was.

 

[Risteard]

BS 7671 is not a statutory document ........

I don't recall suggesting that it was.

 

[Octopus]

I don't recall suggesting that it was.

And therefore unnecessary Labels won't have a penalty

 

[Midwest]

Yes the earth rod part will open up a whole can of worms think the forum may require a new section.

I'm looking at buying some shares in earth rod manufacturers;

earthing rods | companies - http://www.europages.co.uk/companies/earthing%20rods.html



PS don't forget your Euro Millions tonite 32m

 

[Midwest]

I have posted a comment on the draft, to the effect that the committee have lost the plot. Dunno if they will take any notice

 

[westward10]

Our planet will have more holes than a sieve with all these new rods. You will be on the London tube and see them all poking down through the tunnels.

 

[SparkyChick]

I got the impression from a NAPIT webinar that we won't be expected to apply the new rod regs to existing installations.

But we are expected to bring earthing and bonding up to scratch when we do work, so it appears to be yet another area where clarity is needed that probably won't be forth coming.

 

[Octopus]

I got the impression from a NAPIT webinar that we won't be expected to apply the new rod regs to existing installations.

But we are expected to bring earthing and bonding up to scratch when we do work, so it appears to be yet another area where clarity is needed that probably won't be forth coming.

Changes are made for change sake, plus it means new books and revenues for the people who make the decisions and influence things.

One may say it's a clear conflict of interest.....

 

[westward10]

I am reporting the next person who uses the word "webinar"

 

[Ian1981]

Well funny enough I recently watched a webinar (just for you that westward)
And it suggested that we would need to have an Ra value of around 30 ohms for the supplementary earth rod , didn't clarify the reason but must have something to do with touch voltages.
It's was actually Darren Stainforth or whatever his name is doing a live web cam feed from his home on Facebook.

 

[Midwest]

Tis the way forward westward, us singletons have no other way of being informed.

 

[westward10]

Tis the way forward westward, us singletons have no other way of being informed.

I don't mind change as long as everything stays the same.

 

[Midwest]

See I thought Webinair was all part Certsure's NIC & Elecsa conspiracy thing, seems Napit are now part of wrapped up in it. Perhaps Moulder & Sculley had a point?

 

[Midwest]

Off to cook the tea now, might rib Murdoch for posting here every two secs while on hols though, certainly for not going down Summit Plummet, big wimp

 

[Toneyz]

I have always been reluctant to post a re-test notice for small works requiring an EIC/DEIC such as a single new circuit. The reason being that IMO a notice implies to the layman that the entire installation has been inspected/tested when in fact only the aspects pertaining to the small installation have been. With the NICEIC EIC/DEIC forms now requiring a full EICR style tick box list to be filled in for even small works the dilemma arises of ticking the re-test notice box when I haven't provided one.
Do people post a re-test notice on all their jobs or just the jobs that require more extensive testing and inspection than just adding a single circuit?

In an ideal world when an new installation is formed a periodic test sticker is placed at the appropriate position in a domestic situation this will be at the consumer unit this is usually 10 years ,so in 10 years time the occupier would have a EICR and a new sticker would be placed recommending when the next inspection should take place ( before anyone posts yes one could take place in the intervening years) If any work is carried out an appropriate certificate should be issued in the question posted it asks if a periodic notice is present in an ideal world it should be there and the box is therefore ticked.

 

[westward10]

In an ideal world when an new installation is formed a periodic test sticker is placed at the appropriate position in a domestic situation this will be at the consumer unit this is usually 10 years ,so in 10 years time the occupier would have a EICR and a new sticker would be placed recommending when the next inspection should take place ( before anyone posts yes one could take place in the intervening years) If any work is carried out an appropriate certificate should be issued in the question posted it asks if a periodic notice is present in an ideal world it should be there and the box is therefore ticked.

That is a very good way of viewing it.

 

[Midwest]

I googled 'ideal world' expecting some romantic definition, but alas all you get is this rubbish;

Buy for the Home - Craft - Beauty - Fashion - http://www.idealworld.tv/gb/

 

[Midwest]

But music has charms to sooth a savage breast;

 

[Richard Burns]

The way I see it is: BS7671 states that a periodic inspection notice must be applied to an installation on initial verification and updated on each periodic inspection.
Therefore the addition of a circuit is not the initial verification of an installation nor a periodic inspection therefore a periodic inspection notice is not required to be supplied and any existing notice should not be updated.
In the case where there is no notice present and a new circuit has been installed then it should be noted in the condition of the existing installation - no periodic notice is present.
In the checklist there is no requirement under the work you are doing to provide a periodic notice and so the tick box should be marked N/A.

I would say though that I do tend to tick the box if a notice is present (hmm, not very often in domestic), I must train myself out of assuming the tick list should be completely filled in no matter what you are doing, the check list only applies to the work you are doing and anything not applicable to that work should be N/A, you do not need to check it, verify it or tick it.

 

[Toneyz]

I have always been reluctant to post a re-test notice for small works requiring an EIC/DEIC such as a single new circuit. The reason being that IMO a notice implies to the layman that the entire installation has been inspected/tested when in fact only the aspects pertaining to the small installation have been. With the NICEIC EIC/DEIC forms now requiring a full EICR style tick box list to be filled in for even small works the dilemma arises of ticking the re-test notice box when I haven't provided one.
Do people post a re-test notice on all their jobs or just the jobs that require more extensive testing and inspection than just adding a single circuit?

In an ideal world when an new installation is formed a periodic test sticker is placed at the appropriate position in a domestic situation this will be at the consumer unit this is usually 10 years ,so in 10 years time the occupier would have a EICR and a new sticker would be placed recommending when the next inspection should take place ( before anyone posts yes one could take place in the intervening years) If any work is carried out an appropriate certificate should be issued in the question posted it asks if a periodic notice is present in an ideal world it should be there and the box is therefore ticked.

The way I see it is: BS7671 states that a periodic inspection notice must be applied to an installation on initial verification and updated on each periodic inspection.
Therefore the addition of a circuit is not the initial verification of an installation nor a periodic inspection therefore a periodic inspection notice is not required to be supplied and any existing notice should not be updated.
In the case where there is no notice present and a new circuit has been installed then it should be noted in the condition of the existing installation - no periodic notice is present.
In the checklist there is no requirement under the work you are doing to provide a periodic notice and so the tick box should be marked N/A.

I would say though that I do tend to tick the box if a notice is present (hmm, not very often in domestic), I must train myself out of assuming the tick list should be completely filled in no matter what you are doing, the check list only applies to the work you are doing and anything not applicable to that work should be N/A, you do not need to check it, verify it or tick it.

Totally agree this was the point that I was trying to make you just concluded it better than me.

 

[Richard Burns]

Totally agree this was the point that I was trying to make you just concluded it better than me.

I just plagiarised your post to make it look like I knew what I was talking about!!

 

[Midwest]

PS don't forget your Euro Millions tonite 32m

Fishing Euro Millions

 

[Risteard]

All new works whether a new installation or additional circuit(s) or minor works are electrical installation works requiring initial verification so I cannot agree with Richard Burns' post that the label isn't required - it's in black and white in BS7671 that it is.

 

[Toneyz]

All new works whether a new installation or additional circuit(s) or minor works are electrical installation works requiring initial verification so I cannot agree with Richard Burns' post that the label isn't required - it's in black and white in BS7671 that it is.

It should already have one if every time additional circuit(s) or minor works took place the distribution board/consumer unit could be covered with them.