Of course they could. They decide that it is not in the public interest to pursue enforcement.
Electrical Certificate and My electrician
- Thread starter mpooley
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Like-for-like replacement is classified as maintenance work, and does not require a MEIWC to be issued.
Well, yes, they could 'give up', but that's probably no problem for whoever had the work done. If a potential buyer in the future asks for a Completion Certificate, they can simply be referred to LABC to explain why they did not find a way of facilitating issue of a Certificate. In practice, I strongly suspect that they would not want the untidiness of refusing to issue a Certificate (but not doing anything further about the situation), so would probably usually find a way of issuing a Certificate.
Kind Regards, John
The dreaded "like for like" again (which I've personally never seen in any regulation) - where does that (and, indeed, all of what you're saying) come from? Would you really say that 'like for like' replacement of, say, all of the sockets and cable in a circuit did not require any certificate?
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Whilst I agree with John regarding the 'like for like' - where appropriate the regulations merely state 'replacement' so clearly allow not 'like for like' replacements.
As for not requiring a MEIWC, this may be acceptable for a light switch, for example, but I would be most uneasy when replacing a shower.
So, if, as I would, testing the circuit then you may as well give the customer a copy of the results.
Quite so. In any event, if it ever did say "like for like", one would have to try to define what that meant, since replacements parts after a period of time are very often not going to be absolutely identical to the originals.
Again, quite so, and that was the issue Risteard was addressing. I would say, like you, that any work which required any testing (and some would undoubtedly argue that that means any work) ought to result in an IEC or MEIWC, if not only as a means of documenting the results of that testing.
Kind Regards, John
That may be true in the ROI (I wouldn't know).
But it is not true here. Replacing items can easily require an MEIWC to be issued, or even an EIC (replacing a CU for example, even if the underlying reason is maintenance and the new one is identical to the old).
Indeed so. In fact, in terms of your example, not only does replacing a CU require an EIC but "replacing a CU" (although not, in England, installing a new one
) is notifiable work!Kind Regards, John
I live in the north of Ireland, although I work on both sides of the border.
However, I can assure you that there is no BS 7671 requirement to issue a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate for maintenance work such as like-for-like replacement of accesories, although it may be prudent to do so. (Indeed the guidance for recipients section states that it may be used for the replacement of accessories.)
Where is the scope of this 'maintenance work' defined? As BAS asked by implication, would it include, for example, replacing a mechanically damaged CU with an identical one?
Kind Regards, John
The word used in BS7671 relating to maintenance work is "replacement". Heavens knows how "like for like" crept in.
EDIT in response to JohnW's post above.
The text in GN3 and the regs specifically states that an MWEIC does not apply to the replacement of consumer units etc.
EDIT in response to JohnW's post above.
The text in GN3 and the regs specifically states that an MWEIC does not apply to the replacement of consumer units etc.
I didn't read the words - just looked at the flag image.
That is wrong in so many ways.
Does it define "maintenance"?
Is there an explicit exemption from the normal certification which would be required for an activity if the activity is classified as "maintenance"?
Perhaps I could "maintain" the electrical installation in my house by replacing all the old sockets, switches, cables and the old CU, and not need an EIC?
Fair enough. That obviously makes sense, and is 'expected', but I need to reach for my books to investigate this "etc."!
Kind Regards, John
Not sure where this 'etc.' is but BS7671 Page 416 Note 1 merely states:
"For an addition or alteration which does not extend to the introduction of new circuits, a MEIWC may be used."
I read that 'may' as 'may be used instead of EIC'; not 'may or may not bother with any certificate'.
"For an addition or alteration which does not extend to the introduction of new circuits, a MEIWC may be used."
I read that 'may' as 'may be used instead of EIC'; not 'may or may not bother with any certificate'.
To this reader, that reading is so bl****ng obvious that it has never, ever occurred to me that anybody could possibly "read" it any other way.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
