which certificate?

[betty swollocks]

altering kitchen ringmain for new kitchen appliances, no extra loading,

old style mcb cu, no rcd available and no option to change existing cu so i installed a new 2way cu with rcd main switch supplied through henley blocks from existing tails and extended the existing ringmain into the new db.

i'm with Napit and their minor works cert has provision for a new single circuit to be added which is what i've used, my way of thinking is all the circuit characteristics have changed but coming away i'm not sure i was right?!?

but an e.i.c seems well over the top

was i right?

 

[mikel]

By installing a new cu and thus circuit protection does that not mean an EIC is needed. What would you issue if replacing a cu completely with a new one? I'm pretty sure NICEIC want an EIC an as i'm with them I would have isued an EIC for the new circuit, but there again I'm still learning.

 

[Andy™]

EIC.

MW should only be used for minor works, not including new circuit, id say what you have done is a little more than minor works and has a new circuit

 

[betty swollocks]

appreciate that Andy but Napits minor work cert can be used for the addition of one new circuit, it even says so on the cert, 'only to be used for an alteration, addition or one new circuit'

i havn't added a new circuit, in principle i've simply changed the main switch for an rcd, there was a mcb originally albeit an old make, if possible i would have changed the original 32A mcb for an rcbo but the cu was too old for that option

 

[Andy™]

appreciate that Andy but Napits minor work cert can be used for the addition of one new circuit, it even says so on the cert, 'only to be used for an alteration, addition or one new circuit'i havn't added a new circuit, in principle i've simply changed the main switch for an rcd, there was a mcb originally albeit an old make, if possible i would have changed the original 32A mcb for an rcbo but the cu was too old for that option

havent seen napits certs, just going from what i have used.

If the MW says it can be used for that, then use it. gotta be easier than filling in an EIC!

 

[betty swollocks]

supply system, Ze, psc, supply protective device, means of earthing, earthing conductor size, bonding conductor size, location and verification of bonds, main sw type/rating, supply conductor size/material, location, current rating, voltage rating, all visual checks list, as well as all test results for the one circuit involved are all asked for and recorded on a Napit minor works cert

i appreciate what you are saying about the EIC hence my question here but i've looked and there is nothing on an EIC that isn't recorded on a Napit minor works cert.

If there had been more than one circuit then of course you would need the EIC final sheet for test results.

 

[Riggy]

Seems to me that NAPIT are causing the confusion here, if you use the "standard" IET forms, it's clear that this would be an EIC not a MW. Do NAPIT members really go into so much detail for a Minor Works Certificate?

Riggy

 

[betty swollocks]

yes!

which is why i think filling out the 3page EIC unneccessary for replacing the main switch for an rcd, as said, if i changed the mcb for a rcbo would you say i still issue an EIC?

 

[Riggy]

Seems to me that if NAPITs Minor Works ticks all the boxes, use that, if your conscience is clear that's the main thing, because no one ever reads our certificates anyway. I issued an UNSATISFACTORY PIR to a landlord, the letting agents were extremely happy with it, not sure how the tenants would feel!

Riggy

 

[kme]

I would be on the EIC side of the fence; then again I`m not with NAPIT!

From memory, doesn`t 7671 have something to say on the matter - a la MWC should NOT be issued for a new circuit?? Or am I talking ballcocks?

 

[Apache]

I would be on the EIC side of the fence; then again I`m not with NAPIT!From memory, doesn`t 7671 have something to say on the matter - a la MWC should NOT be issued for a new circuit?? Or am I talking ballcocks?

it's an existing circuit

 

[GreekIslandLover]

I'd use EIC personally (we are NIC). But if the Napit form is intended for that purpose, then I don't see the problem. All of the clubs certificates vary from the standard form in the regs book anyway. But my concern with this is that minor works might be used to imply work wasn't notifiable, and this clearly is IMHO.

I issued an UNSATISFACTORY PIR to a landlord, the letting agents were extremely happy with it, not sure how the tenants would feel!

Oh boy - what are they like????? I did a PIR a while back in an ex council house. The guy had bought it off the council cheap and was letting it out via agents to the council of all people! I was there to fix some lighting the council were told was faulty, but ended up doing the PIR after finding a few things wrong. He'd altered the electrics (considerably) when he was living there, and although not lethal, there were a few things I considered potentially dangerous there. I tried to find out if it had been tested before they moved in. The tenant rang up the agent who told them it didn't need to be tested on change of occupancy.

As it was their tenant, the council got the PIR and they were not impressed. As they are s*1*scared of tenants suing them, they are fairly hot on acting on such reports. Not sure of how it all panned out, but I did find out that the guy who was letting it out genuinely expected the council to rewire it for them as it was a "Council house", and tried to claim that any defects stem from the time it was their property, therefore their responsibility. I bet he was genuinely hacked off when they told him "On your bike - welcome to the real world".

 

[Subneural]

I'm with Napit but have always used my own certificates based on 7671, however, having downloaded their example from the website I think I'll be making some changes to match theirs more. It certainly saves doing a complete EIC for one circuit

 

[batty]

Not matter what certificates are like you should be using the one to suit what work you are doing surely.

Batty