Re-test notice dilemma

[Deleted member 9648]

I have always been reluctant to post a re-test notice for small works requiring an EIC/DEIC such as a single new circuit. The reason being that IMO a notice implies to the layman that the entire installation has been inspected/tested when in fact only the aspects pertaining to the small installation have been. With the NICEIC EIC/DEIC forms now requiring a full EICR style tick box list to be filled in for even small works the dilemma arises of ticking the re-test notice box when I haven't provided one.
Do people post a re-test notice on all their jobs or just the jobs that require more extensive testing and inspection than just adding a single circuit?

 

[SparkyChick]

I only post a re-test notice where I'm responsible for a test of the whole installation, so a CU change or an EICR.

I recently did some remedials following a bad EICR (the report was wrong in various areas, but overall the installation seemed in good condition), the original report suggested a re-test in 1 year. The testing I carried out (which tied up largely with the report) gave no indication of why such a short period was required, but it wasn't (IMHO) good enough to suggest a 10 year, so in my report I suggested that I would have required a 5 year inspection, but I didn't put a sticker on... and come to think of it, I don't recall seeing a sticker from the EICR, but that's not surprising based on the supposed issues they found and their suggested solutions.

 

[Delboybully]

When I put in a new circuit or circuits but am not testing the whole installation I put on a retest test sticker and label the circuit or circuits it applies to.

For example, yesterday I put power into a shed. On the retest I put shed only.

 

[The Ghost]

Use another form instead of NICEIC forms. Installing a new circuit imo, means you are responsible for that circuit. Accepted you will not install a circuit without having ensured the installation you are adding to is adequate and bonding/earthing arrangements are satisfactory. However I would resist being pushed in to the direction of effectively certificating the whole installation and would tend to note something to the effect that although inspection has proved to be adequate for the circuit there are limitations, effectively limited to the circuit installed. NIC eh! they seem to make it up as they go along. Very borderline on the legal implications of what you are certifying or taking responsibility for which is not good enough.

 

[westward10]

As stated above, under "Date of last inspection" put in brackets after the date the applicable circuits. Under "Recommended date of next inspection" you could base it on the last inspection date if available, the next inspection date may not correspond with 5 or 10 years from your works but this has been a previous recommendation. If there is no next recommendation date take an assessment of when you feel this should take place not necessarily 5 / 10 years from your date as the whole installation will need testing.

 

[Midwest]

I don't think NIC are to blame, their EIC would be based on the model forms provided in BS7671. The EIC in BS7671, has a section 'Next Inspection', if that is what this thread is about?

When constructing such an EIC for a new single circuit (or multiples of), the circuits not worked on (or tested), can be identified as 'Not Worked ON', as suggested by Delboy.

 

[Risteard]

By not using a next inspection label near the origin of the installation (even for minor works) you are failing to comply with BS7671. It's not an optional thing.

 

[Octopus]

BS 7671 is not a statutory document ........

 

[Midwest]

By not using a next inspection label near the origin of the installation (even for minor works) you are failing to comply with BS7671. It's not an optional thing.

You can always, just cross out the original date, and ink in the new on.

 

[Midwest]

BS 7671 is not a statutory document ........

Near Summit Plummet?

 

[Octopus]

Near Summit Plummet?

Lazy last day, still in bed, then the pool becons ...... Until later when my son and I are going to a muscle car event.

need a holiday now...

 

[Deleted member 9648]

OK, thanks for that. I might well go with the suggestion of noting on the label what it applies to. I do realise it is a requirement to provide a label, but feel it would be far better if the requirement applied only where a new installation has been fully tested, or a satisfactory EICR has been issued.
I still think it is misleading where an install has only been partially inspected.

 

[Octopus]

The labels on fuse boards are a joke imho.

 

[Midwest]

OK, thanks for that. I might well go with the suggestion of noting on the label what it applies to. I do realise it is a requirement to provide a label, but feel it would be far better if the requirement applied only where a new installation has been fully tested, or a satisfactory EICR has been issued.
I still think it is misleading where an install has only been partially inspected.

I agree with you wirepuller; some feel that BS7671 is there in black & white with no ambiguity. Personally, I think its full of holes and that it hasn't to be blindly followed to the letter, as its not a coverall for everything.

If I fit a socket for Mrs Miggans, according to BS7671, I'm required to upgrade the bonding where required. And as from the 18th, I going to start whacking in earth rods in her flower beds as well. Think 'they' are starting to lose the plot. Perhaps 'they' should have a rethink on reg 134.1.1 first.

 

[westward10]

Yes the earth rod part will open up a whole can of worms think the forum may require a new section.

 

[Octopus]

Yes the earth rod part will open up a whole can of worms think the forum may require a new section.

It will certainly upset a few worms when they get rodded .....

 

[Risteard]

BS 7671 is not a statutory document ........

I don't recall suggesting that it was.

 

[Risteard]

BS 7671 is not a statutory document ........

I don't recall suggesting that it was.

 

[Octopus]

I don't recall suggesting that it was.

And therefore unnecessary Labels won't have a penalty

 

[Midwest]

Yes the earth rod part will open up a whole can of worms think the forum may require a new section.

I'm looking at buying some shares in earth rod manufacturers;

earthing rods | companies - http://www.europages.co.uk/companies/earthing%20rods.html



PS don't forget your Euro Millions tonite 32m