cert details

[tom1]

how much detail do you put on cert, i added a new ring final, the existing ring was open on all conductors so radial, but still on 32A mcb. in the comments box i prity much quoted a reg and put number down, just wondering if i should put it in plane english so to speak.

the cert from the cu change noted along the lines, high zs reading due to incompleate ring requires further information

thanks

 

[steptoe]

mmmmmm,

should you have done this at all?

so are you saying you changed a CU,

put in a new RF,

and put 2X existing radial 2.5mm circuits on a 32A MCB.?

or could you put in plain english what you have done.

 

[Manator]

Hi Tom, what cert did you issue? did you do the cu change? and is the circuit that was "open" left in place?

The EIC are pretty much fill the boxes type of certificate.

 

[NozSpark]

I don't quote reg numbers on certs,, maybe I should, I don't know

but if you were doing a CU change and had an open circuit ring (and couldn't easily find the fault) then I'd de-rate the MCB to a 16A or 20A and note it on the cert..

if client wouldn't pay me there and then to sort it, that is

 

[tom1]

bit crap at explaining,

cu change done by someone else, they put 2, 2.5 radials in 32 amp mcb, and noted on there cert high zs reading due to incompleate ring requires further investigation.

i installed a new ring and i'am comenting on existing instalation, and i no that the existing circuit, protective device rated current exceeds current carrying capacitys of cable

 

[Manator]

Right, that makes more sense. The original cu change looks to have been completed by some person who has little understanding of the requirements to make the installation safe, the open circuit should have been identified and put right, or indeed confirmed by testing to verify the circuit design (radials). It would be bad practice to include any comment that requires further investigation on any cu change.

You must issue an EIC for your work, in the comments box I would just refer to the circuit and note "does not comply with BS7671" , I tend not to elaborate other than to add requires improvement.

 

[tom1]

Right, that makes more sense. The original cu change looks to have been completed by some person who has little understanding of the requirements to make the installation safe, the open circuit should have been identified and put right, or indeed confirmed by testing to verify the circuit design (radials). It would be bad practice to include any comment that requires further investigation on any cu change.You must issue an EIC for your work, in the comments box I would just refer to the circuit and note "does not comply with BS7671" , I tend not to elaborate other than to add requires improvement.

that makes sence thanks, more sence than a lot of my post

i think i elaborate to much, any one who reads it prob wont make much sence of it

 

[steptoe]

oh, and put in how you know this,

the relevant cert number etc,

ie, 'CCT 5 does not comply with BS7671/2008 according to EIC 01234567 issued on tuesday last week by drunken bob'

if you get my drift, that way it doesnt imply you have actually checked or tested it.

 

[Manator]

oh, and put in how you know this,the relevant cert number etc,

ie, 'CCT 5 does not comply with BS7671/2008 according to EIC 01234567 issued on tuesday last week by drunken bob'

if you get my drift, that way it doesnt imply you have actually checked or tested it.

very good point

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

You sound like you got too much writing to put in the comments box on the cert?

If I ever have too much to write on the cert, I will often just compete the cert for the pucka work done..

and write up an A4 note (on header paper) ref the job number & associated cert issued

Start off something like...

Whilst undertaking the above work I noticed some anomalies with your installation, which are not fully compliant with the basic safety standards recommended by BS7671 wiring regulations. My observations are as follows:-

1/ xyz

2/ abc

etc..

My recommendation to improve the above hazards would be:-

1/ zyx

2/ cba

Regards

Tom1

Guinness

 

[tom1]

the further away from some one else bodge the better, not even touched it, i like it.

and he cost me a few labels (mixed colours etc), and just put the neutrals and cpcs in any order

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 00:35 ---------- Previous post was made at 00:29 ----------

You sound like you got too much writing to put in the comments box on the cert?If I ever have too much to write on the cert, I will often just compete the cert for the pucka work done..

and write up an A4 note (on header paper) ref the job number & associated cert issued

Start off something like...

Whilst undertaking the above work I noticed some anomalies with your installation, which are not fully compliant with the basic safety standards recommended by BS7671 wiring regulations. My observations are as follows:-

1/ xyz

2/ abc

etc..

My recommendation to improve the above hazards would be:-

1/ zyx

2/ cba

Regards

Tom1

Guinness

good idear specs thanks, but i will put my full name Tom1704 :x

 

[steptoe]

remember tom, if you go with SL's idea, put in the comments box of the cert that you have included an additional page to the cert, and number the pages accordingly,

ie, 1of4 etc, instead of the normal 1of3 (NIC certs are 3, dont know about yours.)

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Oh forgot to say...

If you have taken some photo's of any offending bits..

you can print them as thumbnails along side you observation comments..

Picture worth a 1000 words as they say...

I have done these a few time..

The main objective being to ensure that the customer dosn't think the electrics are all good because they had a proper electrician look at it..

You just make sure your back is covered..

All your bits are good but the rest needs a good seeing to!

Some customers will not give a hoot..

but others.. (In my experience the majority) do come back to you to sort the problems out because they are impressed with your diligence and attention to detail.

:Salute

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 00:45 ---------- Previous post was made at 00:43 ----------

remember tom, if you go with SL's idea, put in the comments box of the cert that you have included an additional page to the cert, and number the pages accordingly, ie, 1of4 etc, instead of the normal 1of3 (NIC certs are 3, dont know about yours.)

I meant to say that as well before..

Good job you are on the ball tonight! :Applaud :worship

 

[steptoe]

makes a change for me. :Blushing

 

[tom1]

thanks guys there so good points to take on board, also i think the customer should be contacting the companey who did the cu change to correct it, not fair for customer to pay again to fix it

 

[steptoe]

was it notified tom?

I take it you have seen the EIC for the CU change, what scam was it with?

if you dont mind,

I dont want to know contractor or anything, just be interesting to see how this pans out with various scam schemes.

 

[Ali]

thanks guys there so good points to take on board, also i think the customer should be contacting the companey who did the cu change to correct it, not fair for customer to pay again to fix it

If they got a cowboy electrician in to do the cu in the first place, they would be better off paying a decent person to do the work (hopefully you?) rather than get a known cowboy back to do some more butchering.

 

[steptoe]

tom1000678593736

let us know how this goes.

 

[PC Electrics]

So, you have an install with 2x 2.5mm radials coming from a 32A MCB. On a PIR this would generate a code 1.

Now, fair enough you know who left it like that and I agree with your sentiment that the client should not have to pay twice, but you should not be walking away from any install issuing a cert on work you have done and leaving behind a code 1 (and deliberately too).

You could:

# oversee the client ringing the other spark to ask for it to be put right. Help them with what to say.

or

# put it right (it only needs a change of MCB to 20A as a minimum). You're there anyway so charge the client a nominal amount in reality, but type them a proper callout invoice for that work alone which they can claim back.

Also help the client make a complaint to the sparks competency scheme. I think a complaint is justified, this is one of the exact reasons why we're supposed to inspect and test installs before putting in a new CU, so we can find and resolve these issues, not leave them and note them!!

Go the extra mile to help this client out and you will have a customer for life, not to mention all the recommendations they could make.