EDF asking for a dead test certificate

[HawkEye244]

Thanks everyone.

The issue is I and a neighbor drew all the cables and wires the sockets and switches (basically did a totally new rewire) however neither of us have the qualifications to sign it off.

I left all boards up so when the (certified) sparky came round he inspected the cables, made sure they were clipped, back boxes in walls etc, and was happy to sign off.

EDF made the requirement for a switch to be fitted and we did that and the meter was fitted.

Lastly, I've agreed to pay £100 for the system to be tested and certified for regs so is this too much? I'm sure it is and difficult to quantify anyway as usually the test is as part of a new system and included in the price of the work.
U
Feedback welcome

That's a good price,go for it, but check that that includes notification to building control via his scheme.

Hi it doesn't include notification to building control I think this would cost considerably more.

What he has suggested is that I obviously keep the paperwork for building control if they wish to see it.

Just had paperwork now and all has comes back fine =)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The issue is I and a neighbor drew all the cables and wires the sockets and switches (basically did a totally new rewire) however neither of us have the qualifications to sign it off.

And from what you have subsequently said "signing off" does not refer to Building Regulations compliance, so that only leaves the EIC.

I left all boards up so when the (certified) sparky came round he inspected the cables, made sure they were clipped, back boxes in walls etc, and was happy to sign off.

So it's the EIC he has lied on.

Just had paperwork now and all has comes back fine =)

Assuming that you can trust an electrician who is prepared to falsify EICs and who doesn't know what dead tests are. [HINT] You can't.[/HINT]

You don't need any qualifications to carry out electrical work in theory

Indeed not.

But as neither you nor your friend believe you can sign an EIC then that means that neither of you believe that you are competent to work to BS 7671.

BAS made it difficult for me when I asked about this originally as he got an impression based on the way I project myself that I shouldn't be doing any of this myself and should hand it over to someone else at big cost.

You yourself, unprompted, have said that the people who did the design and the construction are neither qualified nor competent to be sure that their work complies with the Wiring Regulations.

I'm going to be polite as I was initially and not engage with you any further

I can understand that, since you have no way to show that you did not break the law etc.

 

[JohnW2]

I can understand that, since you have no way to show that you did not break the law.

Provided we have made sure that the OP is aware of the law, why does it matter to any of us whether he broke the law or not? The OP is presumably a 'grown up'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[HawkEye244]

The issue is I and a neighbor drew all the cables and wires the sockets and switches (basically did a totally new rewire) however neither of us have the qualifications to sign it off.

And from what you have subsequently said "signing off" does not refer to Building Regulations compliance, so that only leaves the EIC.

I left all boards up so when the (certified) sparky came round he inspected the cables, made sure they were clipped, back boxes in walls etc, and was happy to sign off.

So it's the EIC he has lied on.

Just had paperwork now and all has comes back fine =)

Assuming that you can trust an electrician who is prepared to falsify EICs and who doesn't know what dead tests are. [HINT] You can't.[/HINT]

You don't need any qualifications to carry out electrical work in theory

Indeed not.

But as neither you nor your friend believe you can sign an EIC then that means that neither of you believe that you are competent to work to BS 7671.

BAS made it difficult for me when I asked about this originally as he got an impression based on the way I project myself that I shouldn't be doing any of this myself and should hand it over to someone else at big cost.

You yourself, unprompted, have said that the people who did the design and the construction are neither qualified nor competent to be sure that their work complies with the Wiring Regulations.

I'm going to be polite as I was initially and not engage with you any further

I can understand that, since you have no way to show that you did not break the law etc.

Just out of morbid curiosity what law do you believe I have supposed to have have broken ?

I have a signed and dated electrical installation condition report here which states the work has been signed off as satisfactory. If building control ever asked for this, or if I came to sell the property this (I'm told) is adequate assurance. I was told that this lasts for 5 years, after which time I would need a new test anyway, or whoever is here. In short it's piece of mind for whoever is going to live here next, it's them I'm thinking of, many I'm sure wouldn't even bother to do that

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just out of morbid curiosity what law do you believe I have supposed to have have broken ?

The Building Act 1984.

I have a signed and dated electrical installation condition report here which states the work has been signed off as satisfactory. If building control ever asked for this, or if I came to sell the property this (I'm told) is adequate assurance.

Who told you that the work was not notifiable?

 

[HawkEye244]

Just out of morbid curiosity what law do you believe I have supposed to have have broken ?

The Building Act 1984.

I have a signed and dated electrical installation condition report here which states the work has been signed off as satisfactory. If building control ever asked for this, or if I came to sell the property this (I'm told) is adequate assurance.

Who told you that the work was not notifiable?

I asked what LAW not what act.. you do know the difference ?

 

[phatboy]

An electrician who isn't familiar with dead tests, which are always conducted before live tests?

You have either misunderstood something this person has said, or he is not an electrician. Those are the only 2 possibilities.

Installing yourself and having a competent person sign it off is 1 thing which I would not be too concerned with, but this person not being familiar with dead testing means they really should not be signing anything off.... Except possibly a Police statement admitting liability for death or injury caused by an installation they certified.

 

[JohnW2]

An electrician who isn't familiar with dead tests, which are always conducted before live tests? ... You have either misunderstood something this person has said, or he is not an electrician. Those are the only 2 possibilities.

Indeed. I strongly suspect that there has been a misunderstanding or problem of communication - since, as you say, otherwise it doesn't really make sense.

Any electrician simply must undertake dead tests all the time. I suppose it's just possible that he isn't familiar with them being called 'dead tests', but even that seems extremely unlikely. Mind you, what the OP originally said he'd been asked for was a "dead certificate" and I have to say that I didn't initially twig what it (probably) meant - it sounded like some variant of a Death Certificate ... so maybe what the electrician actually said was that he was not familiar with a 'dead certificate' - which wouldn't be so unreasonable!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I asked what LAW not what act.. you do know the difference ?

Perhaps we could start examining that topic with an explanation from you on why an Act of Parliament is not a law.

Or if you aren't in the mood for making us all laugh, perhaps you could read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Parliament_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[HawkEye244]

An electrician who isn't familiar with dead tests, which are always conducted before live tests? ... You have either misunderstood something this person has said, or he is not an electrician. Those are the only 2 possibilities.

Indeed. I strongly suspect that there has been a misunderstanding or problem of communication - since, as you say, otherwise it doesn't really make sense.

Any electrician simply must undertake dead tests all the time. I suppose it's just possible that he isn't familiar with them being called 'dead tests', but even that seems extremely unlikely. Mind you, what the OP originally said he'd been asked for was a "dead certificate" and I have to say that I didn't initially twig what it (probably) meant - it sounded like some variant of a Death Certificate ... so maybe what the electrician actually said was that he was not familiar with a 'dead certificate' - which wouldn't be so unreasonable!

Kind Regards, John

Something like that.

It actually wasn't the same electrician I mentioned but I really feel no need to explain or elaborate on this because it's not necessary.

Now I have this report I COULD send it off to BS which would cost me money, or keep it and provide it if asked =)

I asked what LAW not what act.. you do know the difference ?

Perhaps we could start examining that topic with an explanation from you on why an Act of Parliament is not a law.

Or if you aren't in the mood for making us all laugh, perhaps you could read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Parliament_in_the_United_Kingdom[/QUOTE]

Don't turn the question on me because you don't know

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Now I have this report I COULD send it off to BS which would cost me money, or keep it and provide it if asked =)

But keeping it to provide if asked is not what the law required you to do.

Don't turn the question on me because you don't know

Well - I will confirm that I turned the question on you because I don't know why an Act of Parliament is not a law.

Which is probably because an Act of Parliament is a law.

So I'll backtrack, and reply to your earlier post in a different way.

I asked what LAW not what act.. you do know the difference ?

There is no difference. That's what laws are. They are, inter alia, Acts of Parliament.

Assault is against the law - would you agree? It is against the law because it is contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm is against the law - would you agree? It is against the law because it is contrary to Section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Stealing is against the law - would you agree? It is against the law because it is contrary to the Theft Act 1968.


Please let me know either:

a) how many other examples you need before you accept that Acts of Parliament are laws

or

b) why the Building Act 1984 is not a law.

 

[JohnW2]

Now I have this report I COULD send it off to BS which would cost me money, or keep it and provide it if asked =)

Whilst I've been generally siding with you, I'm a bit confused by the above statement.

I don't think we've established for certain whether the work in question was notifiable or not, but it sounds as if it probably was. Nor am I totally clear as to whether your electrician has simply undertaken inspection and testing of the work and issued an Electrical Installation Condition Report or somesuch or (if he is a member of a self-certification scheme) he has claimed to have undertaken the design and construction of the work and has 'self-certified' it (ant notified it to LABC) via his Scheme.

If it wasn't notifiable work, then LABC would have no interest in your certificate, and presumably would not charge you anything for having unnecessarily sent it to them. If, however, it related to notifiable work which had been undertaken without either prior notification to LABC or self-certification by an electrician who had undertaken the work and was a member of a self-certification scheme, then (regardless of whether one talks of laws or Acts ) you theoretically would risk prosecution (although no-one seems to have heard of such a prosecution) and they almost certainly would require you to go through a 'regularisation' procedure, the price of which is usually around double the normal notification fee (hence probably 'several hundred pounds'). They also might, theoretically, require you to expose all of the work, including cables buried in plaster etc. etc. (although they probably wouldn't!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Forget BAS he does this every time he wants to dot every eye and cross every T and presumably tootles along at 20 MPH as he passed a sign saying 20 even if it was all in the wrong colours.

We tend to get caught out with words some times and when I say dead test my first thought was to prove dead and I could not understand why it needed proving dead. I had called it pre-energising testing and simply did not at first realise what they were asking for.

I have many times waited for the supply electricians to arrive and bring in the supply often with daft comments like you should have provided a duct for our cables. And I had to point out the builder in 1750 likely did not envisage having electric power connected.

I think the idea of a main isolator is good but there does seem some debate as to if the supply authority or house holder should provide it. The idea is you can remove the supply without removing fuse and breaking seal.

In most cases we re-wire our own houses bit at a time and as such only the bathroom and consumer unit requires the LABC to be notified. There is some debate at what makes a new circuit where a fully populated consumer unit is installed then one could hide behind the fact all circuits already exist and your only extending them.

Having seen what the LABC do during an inspection before issuing the completion certificate I would not be worried about the certificate in my case all they did was rubber stamp my installation certificate they did not even visit before issuing the completion certificate.

To me to complete the installation certificate means one has to do a check list. One can make mistakes I remember where I had fitted a load of sockets which had line on one side and neutral on the other and with one odd socket it was reversed and I had missed it. Testing highlighted my error and it was corrected we all make mistakes.

As to who does the work well my son worked for a firm doing nothing but inspecting and testing the firm did not issue every electrician with test equipment he would tour around many sites testing. The only thing different from that to owner doing the work is who pays who. The apprentice system still exists and so does the electricians mate and I see nothing wrong with the system.

Clearly doing all the work than asking some one to sign off is very different but where the electrician has planned the work and given set jobs to be completed to apprentice or mate I see nothing wrong with the system which includes the owner mating for the electrician. Main thing the electrician is in control.

Personally I think every electrician doing inspection and testing should hold a C&G 2391 but there is no rule or law that says he needs to have one. The LABC in fact refused to let my son inspect and test even with a C&G 2391 and insisted I do the testing as I had a degree although in real terms the degree did not show me how to inspect and test all though I did have the 2391 the LABC was unaware I held one.

I think my LABC had a problem in that the inspectors were not trained on electrical systems and they would employ a third party inspector to test and inspect however the hierarchy means they need to employ an inspector with higher qualifications or equal qualifications to the person who is doing the work to have the authority to criticise the work. Otherwise they have a problem which report to accept. Hence why with a degree they decided to accept my report.

What you do need to do is have the correct paper trail. If you have a pile of minor works certificates covering all the work done and no completion and compliance certificate that's OK. But if you have a installation certificate covering the whole job then because it's an installation certificate then you need a completion or compliance certificate as well. Unless at the time it was not a dwelling and then you would need a change of use certificate.

But as to who will ask to see the paperwork is another thing. Insurance company could but unlikely unless something goes wrong. So likely not required until the house is sold. When a house changes occupier then an electrical installation condition report is required and also one should be done every 10 years anyway and in the main this then becomes the proof everything is OK and not the original installation certificate.

So once done if you get an electrical installation condition report you are reasonable safe as this should highlight any faults. It will not find a hidden fault like junction box with screws where it should be maintenance free but one would hope there are no blatant breaking of the rules.

 

[HawkEye244]

Now I have this report I COULD send it off to BS which would cost me money, or keep it and provide it if asked =)

Whilst I've been generally siding with you, I'm a bit confused by the above statement.

I don't think we've established for certain whether the work in question was notifiable or not, but it sounds as if it probably was. Nor am I totally clear as to whether your electrician has simply undertaken inspection and testing of the work and issued an Electrical Installation Condition Report or somesuch or (if he is a member of a self-certification scheme) he has claimed to have undertaken the design and construction of the work and has 'self-certified' it (ant notified it to LABC) via his Scheme.

If it wasn't notifiable work, then LABC would have no interest in your certificate, and presumably would not charge you anything for having unnecessarily sent it to them. If, however, it related to notifiable work which had been undertaken without either prior notification to LABC or self-certification by an electrician who had undertaken the work and was a member of a self-certification scheme, then (regardless of whether one talks of laws or Acts ) you theoretically would risk prosecution (although no-one seems to have heard of such a prosecution) and they almost certainly would require you to go through a 'regularisation' procedure, the price of which is usually around double the normal notification fee (hence probably 'several hundred pounds'). They also might, theoretically, require you to expose all of the work, including cables buried in plaster etc. etc. (although they probably wouldn't!).

Kind Regards, John

Forget BAS he does this every time he wants to dot every eye and cross every T and presumably tootles along at 20 MPH as he passed a sign saying 20 even if it was all in the wrong colours.

We tend to get caught out with words some times and when I say dead test my first thought was to prove dead and I could not understand why it needed proving dead. I had called it pre-energising testing and simply did not at first realise what they were asking for.

I have many times waited for the supply electricians to arrive and bring in the supply often with daft comments like you should have provided a duct for our cables. And I had to point out the builder in 1750 likely did not envisage having electric power connected.

I think the idea of a main isolator is good but there does seem some debate as to if the supply authority or house holder should provide it. The idea is you can remove the supply without removing fuse and breaking seal.

In most cases we re-wire our own houses bit at a time and as such only the bathroom and consumer unit requires the LABC to be notified. There is some debate at what makes a new circuit where a fully populated consumer unit is installed then one could hide behind the fact all circuits already exist and your only extending them.

Having seen what the LABC do during an inspection before issuing the completion certificate I would not be worried about the certificate in my case all they did was rubber stamp my installation certificate they did not even visit before issuing the completion certificate.

To me to complete the installation certificate means one has to do a check list. One can make mistakes I remember where I had fitted a load of sockets which had line on one side and neutral on the other and with one odd socket it was reversed and I had missed it. Testing highlighted my error and it was corrected we all make mistakes.

As to who does the work well my son worked for a firm doing nothing but inspecting and testing the firm did not issue every electrician with test equipment he would tour around many sites testing. The only thing different from that to owner doing the work is who pays who. The apprentice system still exists and so does the electricians mate and I see nothing wrong with the system.

Clearly doing all the work than asking some one to sign off is very different but where the electrician has planned the work and given set jobs to be completed to apprentice or mate I see nothing wrong with the system which includes the owner mating for the electrician. Main thing the electrician is in control.

Personally I think every electrician doing inspection and testing should hold a C&G 2391 but there is no rule or law that says he needs to have one. The LABC in fact refused to let my son inspect and test even with a C&G 2391 and insisted I do the testing as I had a degree although in real terms the degree did not show me how to inspect and test all though I did have the 2391 the LABC was unaware I held one.

I think my LABC had a problem in that the inspectors were not trained on electrical systems and they would employ a third party inspector to test and inspect however the hierarchy means they need to employ an inspector with higher qualifications or equal qualifications to the person who is doing the work to have the authority to criticise the work. Otherwise they have a problem which report to accept. Hence why with a degree they decided to accept my report.

What you do need to do is have the correct paper trail. If you have a pile of minor works certificates covering all the work done and no completion and compliance certificate that's OK. But if you have a installation certificate covering the whole job then because it's an installation certificate then you need a completion or compliance certificate as well. Unless at the time it was not a dwelling and then you would need a change of use certificate.

But as to who will ask to see the paperwork is another thing. Insurance company could but unlikely unless something goes wrong. So likely not required until the house is sold. When a house changes occupier then an electrical installation condition report is required and also one should be done every 10 years anyway and in the main this then becomes the proof everything is OK and not the original installation certificate.

So once done if you get an electrical installation condition report you are reasonable safe as this should highlight any faults. It will not find a hidden fault like junction box with screws where it should be maintenance free but one would hope there are no blatant breaking of the rules.

Thanks guys.

Well originally I had intended to have a sparky do the whole job, but I bumped into a neighbor who was a retired sparky who worked on commercial/industrial buildings his whole life. He was involved in the switchgear for these places, and also worked all over the world. I told him what I'd been quoted to do the job and as he wanted to get away from the wife he offered to help for nothing.

So together we drew the wires/cables, starting with the ring circuits, then working on the lights. I snipped old (dead cables as I went along) and pretty much did what he told me to do. In quite a few places we used the old cables as draw wires.

I think the last time he worked before requirement was shortly before 17th edition came out, which did worry me at first, but he seemed to have little trouble knowing what went were.

Over two floors we split each floor. So all the cables go one route to the ground floor, and all the other cables go another route to the first floor. I had the benefit of having a priced quotation from the previous sparky which enabled me to know what to buy, i.e. what fire/smoke to buy, what size cables he intended to buy (sparky knew what to use anyway), most importantly what consumer to buy. I have two PIR lights installed for convenience which were listed, so this made things easier.

In the end we finished up, but my neighbor wasn't confident about fitting the smoke/fire detectors because I confused him as they have wireless functions etc etc, I think he was unsure about all the electronics inside them. So I had the previous sparky who WAS going to do the job to run the cable and fit 2 smoke and 1 fire for £100. He was the one I had a conversation about dead testing/ dead certificate.

So anyway, when he comes to fit the smoke/fire detectors, he inspects the work I've done with the neighbor and says it's all fine and he's happy, we put grommets in the back boxes, run cables horizontal/vertical, clipped, not wedged firm between insulation etc.

So just yesterday (electric meter fitted Friday) I've had a friend of the sparky who fitted the fire/smoke to come out and do a test who apparently had the certification to do it. So he finishes the test which took him 15minutes. This is an electrical installation condition report form KEWTECH, 5 pages, page 1 is details, page 2 looks to be an inspection, page 3 a schedule and page 4, page 5 schedule of test results.

So I've paid £100 for this report, and now have the feeling that I've been ripped off. I was actually under the assumption before he came round that he would notify building control, but he talked me out of that by saying it was not notifiable anyway, and that if they ever ask I am to give the report to them and that would provide assurance of work carried out. He did say it would cost more to send off, but that I could send the report off to BC to get building regulations. Is there any truth in this or have I been stitched up paying for a report that's worthless? I don't actually even no if he's NICEIC registered to do this, for all I know it's a report that anyone could have filled out and gives me no protection whatsoever? How do I know he even did the test?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I've had a friend of the sparky who fitted the fire/smoke to come out and do a test who apparently had the certification to do it. So he finishes the test which took him 15minutes. This is an electrical installation condition report form KEWTECH, 5 pages, page 1 is details, page 2 looks to be an inspection, page 3 a schedule and page 4, page 5 schedule of test results.

No registration (what you call certification) is required to carry out EICRs.

It is not possible to do one in 15 minutes.
Surely it is obvious that it would take more than fifteen minutes to acquire all the results for five pages of documents.

So I've paid £100 for this report, and now have the feeling that I've been ripped off.

That is a very good price for a proper report but a rip-off for a work of fiction.

I was actually under the assumption before he came round that he would notify building control, but he talked me out of that by saying it was not notifiable anyway,

EICRs are not notifiable but then it is not really what you should have which is an Electrical Installation Certificate.

and that if they ever ask I am to give the report to them and that would provide assurance of work carried out. He did say it would cost more to send off, but that I could send the report off to BC to get building regulations.

What does "get Building Regulations" mean? They are laws.

Is there any truth in this or have I been stitched up paying for a report that's worthless?

It sounds like it.

I don't actually even no if he's NICEIC registered to do this,

He does not have to be but then it is not what you required.

for all I know it's a report that anyone could have filled out and gives me no protection whatsoever?

It is if they know what they are doing and do it.

How do I know he even did the test?

FIFTEEN MINUTES.
THE test ???
Look at all the details on the EICR. Do you really think it would be possible?