what documents should be completed after initial veritication?

[SirKit Breaker]

BS 7671 are also only guidelines.


if as has been said previously competent persons scheme is happy for it too be used in this way then there are no problems.

BS7671 is only a guideline as you rightly say, but if you go to court and get prosecuted under the EAWR they will ask you why you didn't comply with BS7671, and if you reply "I worked to Napits rules" you are going to have a really bad day out in court, and you probably wont be going home for a while, and i can guarantee napit will say "Nowt to do with us your honour".

Cheers............Howard

 

[Sharpend]

do you see napit written on the front of bs7671 ?
no , neither do i.
;-)

Didn't say it is right,just what they permit.

 

[onions1066]

To be honest I'm going to put this out there....................does it really matter? I admit an EIC would be better but put forward your argument as to why its better.

 

[Kate]

I bet you'll get flooded with apologies Kate, they should remember that a woman is always right!

Nope no apologies

 

[Sharpend]

It amazes me that we have an organisation, the IET, who are responsible for writing the regs,yet along come others,the scams, and change things to suit. Why can't we just have one song book and all sing from the same sheet?

 

[markc123]

It amazes me that we have an organisation, the IET, who are responsible for writing the regs,yet along come others,the scams, and change things to suit. Why can't we just have one song book and all sing from the same sheet?

Because nothing is simple in life.

I don't think it's the IET's fault its the scams faults for not reading and understanding 'the standard'. Instead they just make up their own rules because they think they own the trade, all the scams are as bad as one another - too much money involved for anything to ever change now though im afraid.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

so it would seem that theres several different ideas floatin about for single new circuits..
as has been said already here i always had it that its an EIC for new circuits....obviously Napit see it different....
seems a bit hard n fast with no rules all this........

 

[markc123]

I know yer, this thread is the first i've known about a MIWC for new circuits.

The whole situation seems bizarre.

 

[Kate]

Just leave it as I'm wrong. I didn't mean to start a debate was just giving my opinion and really wish I hadn't.
BS7671 does state it, but I follow the instructions of NAPIT as I use their test sheets and they are my insurers, for public liability and professional indemnity. So I'm going to continue following their instructions. Clearly because I don't know what I'm doing anyway so it doesn't matter.

 

[stuartcourt]

never thought this thread would go past 10 and how do you get other peoples quotes in your question thought I would work it out but hey...

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Just leave it as I'm wrong. I didn't mean to start a debate was just giving my opinion and really wish I hadn't.
BS7671 does state it, but I follow the instructions of NAPIT as I use their test sheets and they are my insurers, for public liability and professional indemnity. So I'm going to continue following their instructions. Clearly because I don't know what I'm doing anyway so it doesn't matter.

Kate....look at what howard has said at #61.....
that should be your guide here....
i agree that a `napit` minor works for a new circuit wouldn`t cut it....
stop using them love....

 

[onions1066]

I know yer, this thread is the first i've known about a MIWC for new circuits.

The whole situation seems bizarre.

whats bizarre? Tell me your major advantage for and EIC over minor? I'm not saying I disagree nor agree

 

[brookster]

an invoice?

 

[markc123]

Just leave it as I'm wrong. I didn't mean to start a debate was just giving my opinion and really wish I hadn't.
BS7671 does state it, but I follow the instructions of NAPIT as I use their test sheets and they are my insurers, for public liability and professional indemnity. So I'm going to continue following their instructions. Clearly because I don't know what I'm doing anyway so it doesn't matter.

Kate pet - you're not wrong, you're doing as what Napit tell you which is fair enough.

I think it's just come as abit of a shock to people that information can get so muddled up from provider to provider.

 

[onions1066]

Kate....look at what howard has said at #61.....
that should be your guide here....
i agree that a `napit` minor works for a new circuit wouldn`t cut it....
stop using them love....

Should we stop using ECA certs as well then? If the facility is there use it.

 

[Kate]

Kate....look at what howard has said at #61.....
that should be your guide here....
i agree that a `napit` minor works for a new circuit wouldn`t cut it....
stop using them love....

My membership was renewed march 31st. Can't change from NAPIT

 

[markc123]

whats bizarre? Tell me your major advantage for and EIC over minor? I'm not saying I disagree nor agree

Page 89/90 GN3 - thats my reason.

It's bizarre how Napit can contradict BS7671 and GN3 (although they're non-stat they are the standard)

I was just unaware that a MIWC would ever be used for a new circuit under any circumstances. It's obviouslly not wrong if you're a Napit member, and Kate has proved that.

Just out of touch from everything i've ever learnt.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

My membership was renewed march 31st. Can't change from NAPIT

no love...stop using them minor works for new circuits...
stick to the EICs

 

[stuartcourt]

testing is all

- - - Updated - - -

how are you doing this, I want in

 

[ipf]

When I do an EICR, I quote a 7671 reg no being contravened for all defects.
For an installation, in 99% of situations, it's conform to 7671.
In this instance, NAPIT are not conforming to bs 7671. But I am sure they base their certificates on it.
Strange. Have they discovered something we don't know about. If so, surely their clients should know all about it and the reasoning behind it.