EIC Certificate

[springcrocus]

I don't see what the problem is here? You issue an EIC for the work that you do, namely the new tails, which is listed in the "Extent" box. There is nothing to stop you using the same certificate to record the results of your prior inspection.

We had a discussion similar to this (CU change, actually) back last October but I don't know how to link to old posts so I have copied my reply and pasted below.

"I produce my own EIC's, modeled around the standard form, and below the "Notes and Guidance for Recipients" box, I have a "Further Information" box.

The first paragraph of my further information contains the following permanent entry:-

"If the work undertaken is a replacement consumer unit only, then the circuit information supplied on the Schedule of Inspections and the Schedule of Test Results may be incomplete and only reflects the inspections and tests undertaken for the purpose of verifying that the various circuits were safe to reconnect. It does not indicate that the electrician / inspector has altered or added to those circuits, nor does it make the electrician / inspector responsible for any subsequent faults discovered on those circuits.

Whether or not this covers my a**e satisfactorily will only ever be determined in a court of law if a situation ever arises. My scheme assessor seems to approve, though.

Please feel free to copy this verbatim if you feel it may be useful to you. "

In your case, it's not a CU change but a change and connect of tails. The principle is still the same.

 

[Sidewinder]

EIC for newly installed materials.

100% PIR for existing install to ensure it is safe to reconnect anyone?

 

[NozSpark]

I asked this question durig my annual assesment and was told...

"Full testing of the entire installation that CU provides power for should be carried out", i.e. test it as you would a rewire

 

[Sidewinder]

Noz,

If this was a working install when the CU was changed then I disagree with your assesor!

Sorry mate, I would argue this to the end of the earth!

IF the install has as it appears to have been disconnected as it deemed dengerous by the DNO then that is another question.

The situation would be site dependent IMHO.

A simple domestic install perhaps.

An industrial or commercial with a load of circuits...

 

[gordy71]

if the shop is on a seperate meter then treat it as 2 seperate installations. Your only working on the top flat so only cert that. If you did work at a flat in a block with 20 meters in a cupboard youy wouldnt certify all 19 other flats because the one youve worked in shares the same supplyShop- non notifiable

Flat/ Dwelling- notifiable

The shop comes under part p if it is sharing the same supply as the flat.

 

[NozSpark]

TBH I do think it's a bit of overkill myself, certainly for an existing (working) installation

however as this installation has been disconnected (for whatever UNKNOWN reason) then it should be subjected to a very through PIR first. (IMHO)

 

[Geffers]

Just to put a closure on this very good & informative thread. A thorough test was done on the flat (as if it was a new install) R1/R2, IR, Cont/Polarity/bonding (of which there was none) but all pipes were plastic & no gas eveident etc. A PIR was issued with all the results/schedules as required (ran to 6 x pages) I also issued an EIC for the work done at the tails section.All parties will be informed & copies sent & retained by myself. My main recommendations were to fit BS1761 boards with RCD protection as there was no bonding i felt uncomfortable.Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion appreciared.

Geffers