Lack of Minor Works Certificate with DIY'ers?

[deadshort]

Hi, what's the supply to the shed ? It looks like 2.5mm but the socket supply looks like 4mm ? Do you have RCD protection on the supply ?

Regards,

DS

 

[JohnW2]

Hi, what's the supply to the shed ? It looks like 2.5mm but the socket supply looks like 4mm ? Do you have RCD protection on the supply ?

Eh? What shed and what socket supply? This thread is about MWCs and testing, isn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not certain that BS7671 compliance actually requires that a certificate be handed to the customer, but it certainly requires that the testing should be done (and presumably recorded on an appropriate certificate). If (most unlikley) the testing has been done, a DIYer can complete the cert and then hand it to him/herself!

Green book 632.3? ... "The person of persons responsible for the design, construction, inspection and testing....... shall, as appropriate, give to the person ordering the work a Certificate........... together with the schedules described in Regulation 632.1" ...

Fair enough (the Yellow book says the same). As I said, I wasn't certain, but also that it didn't make any difference to this discussions, since there is certainly no doubt that the regs require the testing - and it is the inability/failure of most DIYers to do all of that (which, in turn, may lead to the absence of a certificate) which is being discussed here.

[What "...as appropriate" is meant to mean is antyone's guess!]

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

Doh! What I mean is; until last week if I called in an electrician and did not get a MWC, I would not have known any difference. I.e. While I know testing has to be done to ensure safe operation and what it entails, I did not know the customer receives a copy of the results and the details regarding the job.

I'm not certain that BS7671 compliance actually requires that a certificate be handed to the customer, but it certainly requires that the testing should be done (and presumably recorded on an appropriate certificate). If (most unlikley) the testing has been done, a DIYer can complete the cert and then hand it to him/herself!

Kind Regards, John

It requires that in such circumstances as a certificate is required to be issued, the said certificate must be handed to the person ordering the work.

 

[Risteard]

I have to very shamefully admit that because I don't have a loop tester, When ever I have needed to know Zs in the past, I have calculated it based on a measured R1+R2 + a maximum of 0.8 Ohm for my TN-S earthing system. Not at all acceptable I know, but better than nothing. Will one day get a loop tester and check everything though.

Notwithstanding the horrendous font colour you have selected making it extremely difficult to read, there is nothing particularly wrong with that approach other than that the Ze should have been established by Enquiry from the DNO rather than just assuming it to be be 0.8 Ohms.

 

[JohnW2]

I have to very shamefully admit that because I don't have a loop tester, When ever I have needed to know Zs in the past, I have calculated it based on a measured R1+R2 + a maximum of 0.8 Ohm for my TN-S earthing system. Not at all acceptable I know, but better than nothing. Will one day get a loop tester and check everything though.

... there is nothing particularly wrong with that approach other than that the Ze should have been established by Enquiry from the DNO rather than just assuming it to be be 0.8 Ohms.

Given that it is all-but-impossible that the DNO would state a Ze for TN-S which was greater than 0.8Ω, if using such a conservative estimate resulted in a satisfactory calculated Zs, I would say that is is no worse than 'enquiring' about the Ze. However, whether one 'enquires' or uses the conservative 0.8Ω figure, there remains the problem that that approach will not have confirmed that the CPC of the circuit is actually connected (satisfactorily) to the TN-S earth - so the Zs of the circuit could theoretically be 'infinity'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

Given that it is all-but-impossible that the DNO would state a Ze for TN-S which was greater than 0.8Ω, if using such a conservative estimate resulted in a satisfactory calculated Zs, I would say that is is no worse than 'enquiring' about the Ze.

The maximum impedances quoted are assumed in BS 7671 guidance. The DNOs do not work to BS 7671 or any of its associated guidance.

 

[deadshort]

Hi, what's the supply to the shed ? It looks like 2.5mm but the socket supply looks like 4mm ? Do you have RCD protection on the supply ?

Eh? What shed and what socket supply? This thread is about MWCs and testing, isn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Hi, what's the supply to the shed ? It looks like 2.5mm but the socket supply looks like 4mm ? Do you have RCD protection on the supply ?

Eh? What shed and what socket supply? This thread is about MWCs and testing, isn't it?

Did you perhaps have something to say?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

And it does not really matter if results are written down it's the testing that matters.

And when someone decides to make a claim, alleging that you left an installation unsafe. What evidence have you got/given to defend yourself with. I perform tests and issue certs, on everything I do once I have done work on the system, fair enough takes a little more time on the minor jobs, but covers my arse. I even take photos, if I have concerns/issues about the work I am being involved with.

I had a new ceiling fitted under insurance and clearly the lights had to be removed and refitted. The electrician did test the lights when refitting I watched him do it but I did not see him record the results and even if he did he would have to supply them to the insurer not me as I personally had not ordered the work.

I really was not bothered that he did not give me a certificate he did what to me mattered he tested. Personally I would have written them down in case there is any come back so you can say hand on heart it was OK when I left. But in real terms if I go into a house I have tested so many times I could easy fudge up some results which look reasonable.

So unless you have some one to sign to say they watched you taking the readings any bit of paper is useless it is simply your word against theirs.

So for some one to simply plug in a EZ150 and make no paperwork is clearly better than all the paperwork with guessed results.

So if you test and write the results on your fag packet. Then in the canteen transfer them to some better paperwork. Then the office types them up and sends them to the client and there is an error who carries the can?

 

[JohnW2]

... in real terms if I go into a house I have tested so many times I could easy fudge up some results which look reasonable. So unless you have some one to sign to say they watched you taking the readings any bit of paper is useless it is simply your word against theirs.

Quite so, and that's the problem with any sort of self-certification or self-policing - it relies totally on 'trust'.

So if you test and write the results on your fag packet. Then in the canteen transfer them to some better paperwork. Then the office types them up and sends them to the client and there is an error who carries the can?

If the typed up version correctly reflects what was written on the fag packet then, if there is any can to be carried, it surely must be carried by whoever did (or claims to have done) the tests and wrote the results on the fag packet? However, as above, in the absence of 'witnesses', the difficulty is in proving whether what was written on the fag packet was 'correct' (or, at least, an honest reflection of what readings the test instruments gave) or, indeed, if any testing was actually done.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

But the absence of any proof is worse! Even having a witness would not really improve things, maybe a print-out system of time, dated results directly linked to the test equipment could be a way forward.

 

[JohnW2]

But the absence of any proof is worse! Even having a witness would not really improve things, maybe a print-out system of time, dated results directly linked to the test equipment could be a way forward.

That would obviously require everyone who completed EICs or MWCs (including DIYers) to have equipment that many don't currently have - and, in any event, would still be open to abuse by those with some technical savvy!

As I'm always saying, in relation to self-certifying electricians, I would expect the same as in most other comparable walks of regulated life, namely random checks being undertaken of work (and tests) that they had done, or claimed to have done, and had 'self-certified'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That would obviously require everyone who completed EICs or MWCs (including DIYers) to have equipment that many don't currently have - and, in any event, would still be open to abuse by those with some technical savvy!

We could require a new generation of testers, GPS & NTP enabled, tamper-proof audit logs, results encrypted with test equipment manufacturer or scheme organiser public keys, and they physically issue the certificates.

Spoiler

No - I don't for one minute think we should.

 

[JohnW2]

That would obviously require everyone who completed EICs or MWCs (including DIYers) to have equipment that many don't currently have - and, in any event, would still be open to abuse by those with some technical savvy!

We could require a new generation of testers, GPS & NTP enabled, tamper-proof audit logs, results encrypted with test equipment manufacturer or scheme organiser public keys, and they physically issue the certificates.

Indeed we could - but your 'spoiler' says it all. However, random checking of things that rely heavily (or totally) on trust is a very reasonable, and very standard, practice.

Kind Regards, John