Difficulty getting MWC

[haptism]

Hi, can anyone advise if im barking up the right tree. I recently replaced a CU for a customer prior to her having her bathroom upgradedfrom a high street "shed" with a new shower and towel rail. I ran in a new 10mm for the shower and a 2.5mm for the towel rail but did not connect them at the board. The customer was told the "sheds" electrician would connect it as well as fit the three downlights in the bathroom. So I just changed the CU, and ran in the new (unconnected) cables for the towel rail and shower.

Now that its all been connected, the shed is saying they will not issue a MWC for shower and towel rail because they did not install the cable ! Apparently they did no testing before they connected because I had installed it and it was the right size ! They have issued a MWC for the new downlights they installed because they "themselves" extended the circuit, but not for the shower and towel rail. Now im sure im right in thinking that when anyone installs new equipment to a circuit they should test the cabling before energising, and also issue a MWC. Been telling this to the customer but shes saying the shed "W***es" are saying no. Am I going mad ?

 

[Octopus]

Why did you run the cables? As a spark you know that the person installing should do all the work.

 

[haptism]

Why did you run the cables? As a spark you know that the person installing should do all the work.

I did install the cables in preparation for the the new bathroom, I dont see whats wrong ! Why would anyone not want to fit a shower unless they put in the cable themselves ? The routing of the cable is clearly visible in the loft!

 

[Wilko]

Isn't it a new circuit and so it needs an EIC? (new cable to a new board)
Are you saying Shed Leccie energised cable and shower without testing ?
Agree with Murdoch - doing part of the job is not a good idea. Realistically, I don't think you'll get Shed Leccie back to test and certify so you may need to support your customer ...

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The 'shed' should have issued an EIC (NOT minor works) and stated in the description of works that the cable was 'installed by others'. Simples.
They connected it therefore they should have tested and certified.
If as stated in post#2 the installer should carry out all the work it would not be permitted to use an existing redundant cable for new work or alterations.

 

[Octopus]

One suspects that said shed can't issue an EIC and comply with Part p

 

[snowhead]

The Shed is Not the O.P's customer.
The work was completed after the O.P carried out his/her work.

The O.P could ignore the sitaution as it's not his/her problem.
Or test it as an existing circuit, as that's what it is now to the O.P.

Or go down the long winded and pointless route of getting the Shed to get their (subby?) Electrician to obtain a statement from his Scheme to say that what he did was correct, which of course he can't do because it appears it isn't.

 

[haptism]

Isn't it a new circuit and so it needs an EIC? (new cable to a new board)
Are you saying Shed Leccie energised cable and shower without testing ?
Agree with Murdoch - doing part of the job is not a good idea. Realistically, I don't think you'll get Shed Leccie back to test and certify so you may need to support your customer ...

Thanks for the response, yes the shed leccie connected it (I left the CB's in the board) without doing any testing apparrently (the girl was in the flat at the time). Its a bit arse about ---, I did not test it as I thought the shed sparks would want/have to.

 

[haptism]

Looks like I will go back and test it myself and rewrite the EIC. I suppose its cause its a new circuit that theyre getting in a faff about, I wouldnt expect the shed' not to have scheme membership ! But theres something theyre not happy about ! Another lesson learnt, dont install a cable unless you connect it

 

[Octopus]

I would not be adding a 3rd parties work to my EIC.

You should have installed up to and including isolation switches...... Tested and walk way

 

[haptism]

I would not be adding a 3rd parties work to my EIC.

You should have installed up to and including isolation switches...... Tested and walk way

Yep thats a good call,!

 

[Pete999]

Hi, can anyone advise if im barking up the right tree. I recently replaced a CU for a customer prior to her having her bathroom upgradedfrom a high street "shed" with a new shower and towel rail. I ran in a new 10mm for the shower and a 2.5mm for the towel rail but did not connect them at the board. The customer was told the "sheds" electrician would connect it as well as fit the three downlights in the bathroom. So I just changed the CU, and ran in the new (unconnected) cables for the towel rail and shower.

Now that its all been connected, the shed is saying they will not issue a MWC for shower and towel rail because they did not install the cable ! Apparently they did no testing before they connected because I had installed it and it was the right size ! They have issued a MWC for the new downlights they installed because they "themselves" extended the circuit, but not for the shower and towel rail. Now im sure im right in thinking that when anyone installs new equipment to a circuit they should test the cabling before energising, and also issue a MWC. Been telling this to the customer but shes saying the shed "W***es" are saying no. Am I going mad ?

Should be issuing a n EIC instead of a MNW

 

[Midwest]

I had a similar occurrence a while back. Did a rewire of a property, & installed a new CU. A new kitchen was being fitted. I installed radials for an island unit with cooker & separate socket. Could not do anything for the island unit, as it wasn't in.

Customer was to ring me back, when kitchen was installed, except he got the kitchen fitters electrician to energise radials. I was obviously waiting to submit EIC. Spoke to my scheme, who said ultimately as someone else energised circuits, which should have tested radials. So advised my EIC should state

Looks like I will go back and test it myself and rewrite the EIC. I suppose its cause its a new circuit that theyre getting in a faff about, I wouldnt expect the shed' not to have scheme membership ! But theres something theyre not happy about ! Another lesson learnt, dont install a cable unless you connect it

I had similar a while back, doing rewire ran some cables for the kitchen refit. Kitchen fitters electrician connected & energised cables I ran. Except in this case they certified them.

 

[valleybilly]

Why didnt you test it ?. How stupid you'd look if the radials had insulation or continuity issues and had to be ripped out again no?. However installs it tests and certifys it in my GN 3 unless its changed ?.

 

[Rpa07]

Would you blindly install your shower to a nice new 10mm cable without testing for power, insulation and continuity?
I think you should be saying the same about the 'shed' fitters who then walked away not testing anything!
The OP installed the cable in order to return to fit the accessories, THEN he would have done all the tests and terminated in the CU!
The customer had better ideas and didn't include him - fault can go all three ways in this 'not ideal' scenario.

Why didnt you test it ?. How stupid you'd look if the radials had insulation or continuity issues and had to be ripped out again no?. However installs it tests and certifys it in my GN 3 unless its changed ?.

 

[valleybilly]

The OP would be contravening regs allowing the other company to EIC any curcuits they havn't fitted themselfs and they should already know this like the sheds electrician dose . Hence they could only issue a MWC if they extended the cable post live connection witch they didnt and seem to know the score . Excepting what a customer says on regs ? Oops no thanks . Since when do you need to issue a MWC for fitting an accessory ?. If you didnt install the cable just the accesorry to a dead untested new curcuit its the OPs bag not theres.

 

[snowhead]

If you didnt install the cable just the accesorry to a dead untested new curcuit its the OPs bag not theirs.

Surely not, if the other party leave the circuit energised?

 

[valleybilly]

They only installed the accessory ! . The OP was expecting a MWC from the shed not a EIC (f n why) so i presume the OP energized the curcuits & therefore did all testing later . The curcuit was never live

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The OP would be contravening regs allowing the other company to EIC any curcuits they havn't fitted themselfs and they should already know this like the sheds electrician dose . Hence they could only issue a MWC if they extended the cable post live connection witch they didnt and seem to know the score . Excepting what a customer says on regs ? Oops no thanks . Since when do you need to issue a MWC for fitting an accessory ?. If you didnt install the cable just the accesorry to a dead untested new curcuit its the OPs bag not theres.

They only installed the accessory ! . The OP was expecting a MWC from the shed not a EIC (f n why) so i presume the OP energized the curcuits & therefore did all testing later . The curcuit was never live

Any chance of re-posting these in a format which I can understand?

 

[valleybilly]

Oops read the post wrong. OP asking for MWC only so it threw me + Half a day in the garden with a crate of crona dont help Burrp !