Can you ‘N/A’ most of a Minor Works for a like for like replacement?

[Weezy]

Seeking advice, we have been replacing extractor fans for a local council and was originally told no ‘like for like’ replacement works needs a minor works certificate.

Came into the office today to find they now want minor works certificates for about 250 fans we replaced.

Now normally if you was just doing a like for like swap no one would start checking the water/oil bonding, and recording circuit details or even looking to see what system of earth the property has, therefore my question is “since these items havnt been inspected would i be complying by simply marking most of the certificate as N/A?”

There’s simply no way we’re going to re visit 250 propertys some up to 45 miles away just to tick a box on a form that technically doesn't even need issuing for a double insulated fan swap over. i don’t want to get into a debate if it’s ethically right or wrong i just want to make sure im complying.

How iv always interpreted it was you may “n/a” something not inspected and my reasoning for not inspecting bonding would be because a replacement doesn’t require you to, therefore it must be okay to record bonding on a minor works as n/a. Do people agree?

 

[westward10]

NA means not applicable but they are applicable you would be better off using NV, not verified.

 

[Weezy]

NA means not applicable but they are applicable you would be better off using NV, not verified.

It’s not applicable to check bonding under these circumstances changing a fitting like for like that’s my point, surely therefore NA would be used?

 

[westward10]

Well it is applicable you just didn't verify it.

 

[ferg]

NA for bonding would be for if there wasn't any and it wasn't required.
NV for couldn't / didn't need to verify.

 

[ipf]

Sounds like it's going to be a waste of paper as well as time...but if that's what's required.
Personally, I would contact the council department in question and have a discussion with whoever holds sway.
As previous, if you provide certificates, N/V.
250 certs at 5 minutes each, even, would be a long pain.
and a lot of N/V's.

 

[Scintillam]

Sounds like it's going to be a waste of paper as well as time...but if that's what's required.
Personally, I would contact the council department in question and have a discussion with whoever holds sway.
As previous, if you provide certificates, N/V.
250 certs at 5 minutes each, even, would be a long pain.
and a lot of N/V's.

If it’s an option and they use nic online the cert could be copied with the results that you wanted to be the same automatically filled out after the first one

 

[Weezy]

Sounds like it's going to be a waste of paper as well as time...but if that's what's required.
Personally, I would contact the council department in question and have a discussion with whoever holds sway.
As previous, if you provide certificates, N/V.
250 certs at 5 minutes each, even, would be a long pain.
and a lot of N/V's.

Well it is applicable you just didn't verify it.

NA for bonding would be for if there wasn't any and it wasn't required.
NV for couldn't / didn't need to verify.

What i’m getting at is if fill out 250 forms with “N/V” for a large portion of it i’m technically correct in doing so?

I agree it’s a complete waste of paper and time but if they insist we have to do it we wanna be able to do it as quickly as possible but also correctly to cover myself incase they say “you’ve put NV for a lot of this” i can say “well it wasn’t verified because it was just a replacement and therefore we didn’t have to”

Im just making sure im correct in saying this, id hate to fill out 250 forms and then have to fill out another 250… The sad thing is in reality we all know no one’s even gonna look at them.

 

[westward10]

Did you carry out a Zs, know the protective device and earthing system.

 

[cliffed]

Always a difficult one this, if the client asked before the works were completed then that’s fine, costs added to the works.
It’s a lot of works not to be certified..
Checking the MPBC’s are in place can be difficult so that could be marked by a limitation, & ask for any Certification document if available for you. I’d usually do the basic Zs…Rcd…OCPD etc
But if the Client didn’t ask for MWC then costs should be directed back at them

 

[westward10]

You can't enter a Limitation on a Minor Works.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Well it is applicable you just didn't verify it.

Your replies are what keep me coming back to this site @westward10

Not rude yet not polite, subtle humour, usually correct.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Seeking advice, we have been replacing extractor fans for a local council and was originally told no ‘like for like’ replacement works needs a minor works certificate.

Came into the office today to find they now want minor works certificates for about 250 fans we replaced.

Now normally if you was just doing a like for like swap no one would start checking the water/oil bonding, and recording circuit details or even looking to see what system of earth the property has, therefore my question is “since these items havnt been inspected would i be complying by simply marking most of the certificate as N/A?”

There’s simply no way we’re going to re visit 250 propertys some up to 45 miles away just to tick a box on a form that technically doesn't even need issuing for a double insulated fan swap over. i don’t want to get into a debate if it’s ethically right or wrong i just want to make sure im complying.

How iv always interpreted it was you may “n/a” something not inspected and my reasoning for not inspecting bonding would be because a replacement doesn’t require you to, therefore it must be okay to record bonding on a minor works as n/a. Do people agree?

I would 100% have insisted on this in writing. I may even have added that if you decide you want want certificates then there will be an extra cost. I write so bloody much now in my quote! It does make things so much easier on the rare occasion there is a dispute about what work is actually to be carried out.

Now I realise that we should be giving out certificates anyway as part of the work, but in your case you were told you didn't need to. This doesn't sound unreasonable for such a small job, and the NICEIC say much the same (ref Professional Electrician & Installer, 25th November 2019, Appropriate use of minor works certificate) - see below. However, it does look like some form of documentation would still be required.

I just carry out work in domestic premises. If I was having a lazy day and did not give a MWC for a fan change, I would still have made a few quick notes of the tests in my diary (Zs, RCD, circuit details). If you are carrying out hundreds of these jobs for a council I think you need to be pretty hot with the paperwork.

"Replacement of an accessory

Although a minor works certificate may be used to certify the replacement of an accessory, for example, a wall switch or a socket-outlet on a ‘like-for-like’ basis, such work would generally fall under a maintenance regime and so the client, such as a local authority, can choose to use their own documentation instead.

However, where this is the case, the safety declaration, installation details, and the inspection and test results recorded on the client’s documentation should be no less comprehensive than would be included on the MEIWC. A copy should also be retained by the contractor."

 

[Vortigern]

Maybe you could ask them for existing records that are up to date for each of the properties as being also a requirement for regulation compliance. Perhaps where they do not have them up to date you might offer EICR for those properties and get a scoop? Really speaking they are quite right to ask for the MEIWC. 132.15 and 514.9.1 require ascertaining the suitability of the installation. If they produce the certificates this maybe would comply as you have ascertained the current suitability?

 

[GBDamo]

Seeking advice, we have been replacing extractor fans for a local council and was originally told no ‘like for like’ replacement works needs a minor works certificate.

Came into the office today to find they now want minor works certificates for about 250 fans we replaced.

Now normally if you was just doing a like for like swap no one would start checking the water/oil bonding, and recording circuit details or even looking to see what system of earth the property has, therefore my question is “since these items havnt been inspected would i be complying by simply marking most of the certificate as N/A?”

There’s simply no way we’re going to re visit 250 propertys some up to 45 miles away just to tick a box on a form that technically doesn't even need issuing for a double insulated fan swap over. i don’t want to get into a debate if it’s ethically right or wrong i just want to make sure im complying.

How iv always interpreted it was you may “n/a” something not inspected and my reasoning for not inspecting bonding would be because a replacement doesn’t require you to, therefore it must be okay to record bonding on a minor works as n/a. Do people agree?

If this is a genuine change then throw it back at them, a nicely worded email explaining the additional testing requirements and paperwork charge of £--- per unit might focus their minds a little.