Discuss Minor Works testing advice in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

leep82

-
Arms
Reaction score
131
hi all, currently doing an office refurb and are ready to reinstate switch drops that were removed to allow walls to be taken down. The wiring is all T&E into klik plug in boxes above the ceiling. Currently having a discussion on site with another electrician about how we go about doing our testing. I do have my 2391 so have no issues with the actual test procedures just how far to go with it as peoples opinions seem to differ.

Obviously its a minor works but in some cases we havnt installed any additional wiring. Literally just removing the cable into ceiling void and making safe before dropping down new wall to switch position. Other areas require a new feed and switch wire from the local klik box to new switch position. In the past a company i used to work for would limit both the IR and R1+R2 test to the new cable only and make a comment on this in the appropriate box on the minor works sheet. We would ensure that a Zs reading was taken at the point of connection, in this case that being the local klik box. What are peoples thoughts on this as the electrician i am currently working with disagrees.
 
You'll get differing opinions in various posts Lee.
I think that what you describe sounds OK, I would however take the Zs at the switch as that's actually what you moved. A Zs at the klik box does not prove adequate Zs at the switch.
 
Thanks we would take Zs at switch also sorry forgot to mention. Just reading other similar threads and it seems everyone has a different opinion on this matter. What course of action do you think is best where we arnt altering any wiring? Just a Zs at switch postion again? What about a like for like replacement? I used to work for a company who were very good regarding testing and any issues i had i could always get advice from them. Im self employed now and concerned i do enough to cover myslef as ive found the different companys i have already subbed to all have different opinions.
 
If the work involves filling in 3 or 4 minor works certificates depending if a number of circuits are being altered then I'd just use an EIC and tick the alterations section so it's just one certificate your filling in all be it more detail required to it.
 
If the work involves filling in 3 or 4 minor works certificates depending if a number of circuits are being altered then I'd just use an EIC and tick the alterations section so it's just one certificate your filling in all be it more detail required to it.
An EIC is for new circuits, don't see how you can use that certificate for altering existing, personally I would issue a MNWC for each circuit altered.
 
An EIC is for new circuits, don't see how you can use that certificate for altering existing, personally I would issue a MNWC for each circuit altered.
It's also for alterations and additions as changing a consumer unit wouldn't be classed as 'new work' for example
 
How far would you guys go if you were swapping accessories? Would you complete a MW cert for such a job? Or maybe just take a Zs reading.
 
It's also for alterations and additions as changing a consumer unit wouldn't be classed as 'new work' for example
OK what would you issue for a new socket on an existing RFC, as opposed to a new socket from a spare way at the CU?
 
OK what would you issue for a new socket on an existing RFC, as opposed to a new socket from a spare way at the CU?
Existing circuit sparing from a socket, a minor works.
If I added quite a few sockets such as altering the ring I'd use a EIC and tick the addition and alterations box.
New socket from a spare way is a new circuit so I'd again use a EIC
 
An EIC is for new circuits, don't see how you can use that certificate for altering existing, personally I would issue a MNWC for each circuit altered.

This issue has been debated before, and I know some use an EIC in lieu of a Minor Works, due to additional costs of multiple MW and simplification of documentation submitted to a client. BS 7671 suggests EIC may be used for alteration or addition to an existing installation, where new circuits have been introduced.

I myself have documentation to complete for some recent work, where I have altered an existing circuit & installed a new circuit, on an installation. My intention is to complete an EIC for the both?

OP there was an article in June PE, by ECA that commented on testing & certification on accessory etc replacement, unfortunately I can't seem to find a link to it on their web site (Wiring Wisdom).

The gist of the article, was some form of documentation would be a good idea, but surprising the author suggested 'simple wiring accessory/light fitting replacement would clearly fall outside the scope of BS7671 - yet still some liability remains on the person responsible for the work'.

EaWR, was spoken of, and best industry practise should be followed.

Checks; safe isolation etc, polarity, EFLI, RCD test if applicable.

Recording; MW or companies own method of recording.
 
What do you disagree with pete?
Maybe I'm old School, but an alteration is exactly what it says on the tin, therefore a MNWC should be provided, a new circuit on the other hand would elicit an EIC.
Your statement you said a spur from a RFC = a MNWC yet 2 or 3 new sockets added to an existing RFC is again an alteration, yet you state an EIC would be what you would issue, sorry but I can't see the logic in what you are saying, don't mean to be difficult Ian, it's just how I see things.:D
 
Maybe I'm old School, but an alteration is exactly what it says on the tin, therefore a MNWC should be provided, a new circuit on the other hand would elicit an EIC.
Your statement you said a spur from a RFC = a MNWC yet 2 or 3 new sockets added to an existing RFC is again an alteration, yet you state an EIC would be what you would issue, sorry but I can't see the logic in what you are saying, don't mean to be difficult Ian, it's just how I see things.:D
Fair enough but i was saying that if for instance quite a number of sockets were being moved and new ones installed with great disruption to the existing ring final then using an EIC and using the alterations box ticked is perfectly acceptable or else why is it included on the certificate?
Especially if it's more than one circuit altered

No offence taken pete your just added to my enemies list is all:p
 
Fair enough but i was saying that if for instance quite a number of sockets were being moved and new ones installed with great disruption to the existing ring final then using an EIC and using the alterations box ticked is perfectly acceptable or else why is it included on the certificate?
Especially if it's more than one circuit altered

No offence taken pete your just added to my enemies list is all:p
That's OK Ian the more the merrier:p:D:mad:
 
I would personally do a Minor Works with the full scope of required tests with the Zs at the extremity to ensure fault protection and earth continuity is maintained throughout. You do not want to be in a situation later down the line if something were amiss and you, being the last person to work on it were to have accusations aimed at them. One or fifty Minor Works should not be a deciding factor.
 
I would personally do a Minor Works with the full scope of required tests with the Zs at the extremity to ensure fault protection and earth continuity is maintained throughout. You do not want to be in a situation later down the line if something were amiss and you, being the last person to work on it were to have accusations aimed at them. One or fifty Minor Works should not be a deciding factor.
True but I would always document my scope of works that I have covered in the description and comments section and record N/A in the schedule of inspections which is as it states is not applicable

Too be clear I would only provide the EIC if I thought it was necessary, not because I've installed say 2 sockets it would depend on the amount and the scope of works involved to justify it.
It still complies in my eyes
 
It is a regular thing that a works will include both new circuits and alterations to existing. I would always include the altered existing circuits on the same schedule as the new circuits on an EIC.
All that is required is to state on the circuit ID....(example).
Cooker (new circuit)
Upstairs lights (existing circuit)

As long as the description of work is comprehensive I think this is perfectly clear, our NICEIC inspector has seen dozens of EIC's covering both new and existing and never commented.
Why complicate things and add to the worlds paper mountain by completing a wad of minor works when a full EIC has to be issued anyway?
 

Reply to Minor Works testing advice in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

YOUR Unread Posts

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock