Replacing electric shower like for like - regulations ?

[JohnW2]

Just noticed this one ....

There is no requirement to issue any certificatation for something like swapping a shower.

I disagree. This relates to a question in a recent thread which was not answered.
Namely, do you think there is something less than Minor Work? If so, what is it?

I have a feeling that it was me to whom yoiu directed that question in a recent thread, and that the reason I did not answer was that I regarded it as essentially rhetorical. Given that (AFAIAA) no other categories of work are defined anywhere, there is clearly nothing (defined) which is less than 'Minor Work'. However, that does not necessarily mean that absolutely any 'work' (in an everyday sense) automatically requires a Minor Works Certificate. Do you think that tightening a terminal (or even faceplate screw), replacing a lamp or fuse, squirting a little silicone into a hole in an enclosure etc. would warrant a certificate?

As for RF's point, I guess it depends upon what one means by 'a requirement'. To the best of my knowledge, there is no legal requirement for any sort of paperwork in relation to non-notifiable work, even though it may be argued that BS7671 calls for it. Scheme operators may also 'require it' of their members, but I'm not sure they necessarily have any great say in relation to non-notifiable work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, it was not you, John.

Without looking back, I think it was RF saying much the same then.

631.3 says where an EIC is not required a MEIWC may be issued.

It depends if you take 'may' to mean 'is allowed to/can' be issued -
or it 'might' be issued if you feel like it.

The notes on the rear of the actual certificate (page 394 BGB) also state a MEIWC may be issued for replacement of equipment.

Do you think that tightening a terminal (or even faceplate screw), replacing a lamp or fuse, squirting a little silicone into a hole in an enclosure etc. would warrant a certificate?

Silicone aside, had you tested anything, I would say yes.
However, the same question arises with testing.
Should you not wish to bother, that is up to you but it might come back to haunt you.

As for RF's point, I guess it depends upon what one means by 'a requirement'. To the best of my knowledge, there is no legal requirement for any sort of paperwork in relation to non-notifiable work,

As above and below.

even though it may be argued that BS7671 calls for it. Scheme operators may also 'require it' of their members, but I'm not sure they necessarily have any great say in relation to non-notifiable work.

Not all non-notifiable work is 'Minor' in this respect.

I should definitely want it recorded that I had fully tested a shower circuit before I fitted the new one and left.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Silicone aside, had you tested anything, I would say yes.

If you replace a lamp for someone, you'll do a functional test before you leave. Are you really going to issue a MEWC?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Silicone aside, had you tested anything, I would say yes.

If you replace a lamp for someone, you'll do a functional test before you leave. Are you really going to issue a MEWC?

No, but that's not what I meant by tested (values to be recorded).

Do you not think some documentation should accompany a shower replacement or, for example, extending or spurring a ring final circuit.

 

[JohnW2]

No, it was not you, John. Without looking back, I think it was RF saying much the same then.

Fair enough. I thought I also said something to provoke such a comment, but maybe my memory is failing me!

631.3 says where an EIC is not required a MEIWC may be issued. It depends if you take 'may' to mean 'is allowed to/can' be issued - or it 'might' be issued if you feel like it.

Indeed - but, in any event, this is BS7671, not 'law' - and, as for arguing that compliance with BS7671 is the easitest/usual way of demonstrating compliance with Part P (which is obviously required for anything), I don't think that's really relevant in terms of paperwork. Part P merely requires that provision is made to ensure safety etc. - and that, in itself, can theoretically be achieved (hence 'compliance with the law) in the absence of any paperwork at all.

Do you think that tightening a terminal (or even faceplate screw), replacing a lamp or fuse, squirting a little silicone into a hole in an enclosure etc. would warrant a certificate?

Silicone aside, had you tested anything, I would say yes.

Fair enough, but would you really test (other than by 'switching on') after replacing a dead lamp? ... and, although I could produce the explanation of 'why one should', would you really test anything after tightening a loose faceplate screw or, say, a terminal screw in a pendant lampholder?

even though it may be argued that BS7671 calls for it. Scheme operators may also 'require it' of their members, but I'm not sure they necessarily have any great say in relation to non-notifiable work.

Not all non-notifiable work is 'Minor' in this respect.

Indeed, but this discussion is about a job which I think most are agreed is non-notifiable.

I should definitely want it recorded that I had fully tested a shower circuit before I fitted the new one and left.

Of course - but the discussion is not really about what is sensible (for both customer and electrician) - but, rather, how that information should be recorded, on which bit of paper, and whether such recording is 'required' (by regs,laws or whatever). In practice, I totally agree that an EIC or MWC, as appropriate, will usually represent the simplest and most obvious means of doing the recording - but that's not really what's being discussed. As far as a customer is concerned, the same information recorded on 'the back of a postcard' (and duly attributed!) would essentially serve the same purpose as an MWC.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh well, in that case I concede that you and RF are correct in what you write, then.

I cannot argue with the fact that none of this is actually legally required - as long as I ensure it is safe.

 

[JohnW2]

Oh well, in that case I concede that you and RF are correct in what you write, then. I cannot argue with the fact that none of this is actually legally required - as long as I ensure it is safe.

Yes, I think that's the point. Don't forget that we often see this issue arising (as essentially in this thread) in relation to a question about what an electrician (or 'electrician'!) "must" provide by way of paperwork - and, in the absence of any mandatory legal requirements, I think the answer to that "must" question is usually going to be 'nothing' - unless specifically contracted between customer and the person undertaking the work.

In common sense terms, I think we're all agreed that, when there is anything which people feel needs to be recorded/documented (like test results - or, at least, confirmation that appropriate tests were undertaken and the results satisfactory), a MWC (or EIC) will usually be the simplest and most obvious mechanism to use.

Kind Regards,John

 

[RF Lighting]

For a simple job like replacing a socket front or even a shower, I wouldn't issue a MEWC, unless I was specifically asked to do so. I would still test the job and as long as the readings are ok, then it's all good.

I would issue a certificate for any job where I've installed new fixed wiring.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, have to agree (now) but with something as potentially hazardous as an electric shower would you not want to show you had taken all possible care?

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, have to agree (now) but with something as potentially hazardous as an electric shower would you not want to show you had taken all possible care?

It might help a bit 'in a court of law' but, in reality, I would imagine that someone capable of installing a shower without adequate care and/or testing would probably be equally capable of issuing a certificate with fictitious results of tests which were never undertaken. That's a major problem for customers - 'certification' issued by the person who undertook the work offers no real protection against incompetents and cowboys.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Do you not think some documentation should accompany a shower replacement or, for example, extending or spurring a ring final circuit.

Absolutely.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, have to agree (now) but with something as potentially hazardous as an electric shower would you not want to show you had taken all possible care?

It might help a bit 'in a court of law' but, in reality, I would imagine that someone capable of installing a shower without adequate care and/or testing would probably be equally capable of issuing a certificate with fictitious results of tests which were never undertaken. That's a major problem for customers - 'certification' issued by the person who undertook the work offers no real protection against incompetents and cowboys.

That's a depressing outlook. I thought I was cynical.

So, no point in any rules then as those who are honest will do it properly anyway and those dishonest will not.

Half the lawyers in court at any one time are lying.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No they are not.

 

[JohnW2]

That's a depressing outlook. I thought I was cynical. So, no point in any rules then as those who are honest will do it properly anyway and those dishonest will not.

I agree that it's a bit depressing, but I hope that you've haven't only just now realised some of the truths about the world in which you live!

What I said seems more like 'the obvious' than cynicism. If you were contemplating buying an expensive work of art from someone about whom you knew nothing (and therefore who might be a crook/'cowboy'), and wanted some reassurance about its authenticity, how much such reassurance would you derive from a 'certificate of authenticity' issued by the person trying to sell it to you? I have spent much of my life dealing with highly quality-regulated situations, and one of the most basic principles is that the person(s) undertaking quality checks/audits and/or certifying/'signing off' things that have been done/written/whatever must be different from those whose work is actually being checked/ certified/ whatever. That seems to be pretty much like 'common sense' to me!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

No, I am under no illusion about how the world works and have little (NO) faith in officialdom - which recent happenings definitely confirm.

I was, though, more than a little dispirited by your thought that diligent work, testing and certifying would hold not much more credence with a court than a work of fiction.