Schedule Of Inspections question

[Edd]

I agree theres a misconseption that issuing an EIC for an addition or alteration does not make you responsible for the whole installation. I was going with the OP about a CU change. If you change a CU the circuits you reconnect Will have to be shown to be safe. You cannot reconect an unsafe circuit, YOU will be liable.
As I said above the only way to cover your self would be to issue a PIR and an EIC.
But when changing a CU and filling in an EIC all the circuits you reconect will be on the cert, any non compliances will then be noted and in the Schedule of inspections when it says routing of the cables,,,,unless you can confirm the circuits you have reconected comply then a N/V should be added.
in my case the computer program only allows LIM N/A a tick or cross,, so in my case i put LIM. and as all the necessary tests have now been carried out a seprate PIR is not issued just noted on the cert.
am I doing this wrong??? Thanks

 

[malcolmsanford]

Sorry Edd you are indeed filling out the SoI for an EIC wrong if you place a LIM in it. And to be a bit pedantic a N/V should also not be placed on it either.

It is really quite clear on page 340 of the BRB that you can place a tick or a N/A for an initial verification


And a tick, cross N/A and a LIM for a PIR.

As Spin as pointed out the new amendment as revamped all the forms and you now have different SoI for initial verification and the EICR.

 

[Edd]

Thanks guys, looks like when changing a CU a seprate PIR and EIC will then need to be issued. just need to talk the clients into it!!

 

[JUD]

I would say that if you're work involves a CU change only then I would put N/A for the routing of cables as it doesn't apply (as in Not Applicable) to the work you are responsible for on the EIC.

 

[Robinson]

I agree theres a misconseption that issuing an EIC for an addition or alteration does not make you responsible for the whole installation. I was going with the OP about a CU change. If you change a CU the circuits you reconnect Will have to be shown to be safe. You cannot reconect an unsafe circuit, YOU will be liable.
As I said above the only way to cover your self would be to issue a PIR and an EIC.
But when changing a CU and filling in an EIC all the circuits you reconect will be on the cert, any non compliances will then be noted and in the Schedule of inspections when it says routing of the cables,,,,unless you can confirm the circuits you have reconected comply then a N/V should be added.
in my case the computer program only allows LIM N/A a tick or cross,, so in my case i put LIM. and as all the necessary tests have now been carried out a seprate PIR is not issued just noted on the cert.
am I doing this wrong??? Thanks

Hi guys been a while . Sorry i not imputed much recent. this thread maybe at its end but still wanted to say I agree with above but what is considered unsafe>? Sounds silly but if you have very low IR readings or a broken ring, or say Shared neutral. As i have had this and where done a CU change. And i be honest i dont carry out a Full PIR or EICR before every CU change. so when faced with a issue such as what you do. ? I noted on my cert a very low IR reading on a Ring (below 1 mega) and no R1+R2 on lighting and my asseser came to see and he said nothing about not allowing that. And really it was a possible problem one that certainly needed further investigation, but he said as long as you noted it. that was a EIC. Surely changing to a RCD board would make it more safe.