How many minor certificates should be issued

[Richard Burns]

Although BS7671 effectively says a certificate for each modified circuit it does not say every individual modified circuit must only have its own dedicated certificate.
If you provide two certificates where you have modified two circuits, as is totally in accordance with BS7671, and then realise that there is a lot of duplication on the forms and decide to combine the information that is duplicated into a single form and have the specific information for each circuit separately on the one form then this would also be compliant.
This is using the "based on the model certificate" statement and ensuring that you have provided all the required information in a clear and compliant format.
A couple of quickly prepared forms (delta comes out as ?, sorry) to demonstrate:
two forms (on one sheet)

vs one form for two circuits which looks better and saves paper (one less safety information page since I combined the two forms).

 

[Octopus]

Because the requirement is to provide a MEIWC for each circuit altered.

Not aware that anyone has stated the model forms have to be used as printed?
The requirement is to use forms based on the model forms.
Yes the model forms are designed with provision for one circuit.
That's because the requirement is to use one MEIWC for each circuit.[/QUOTE

I understand what your saying but why would such Certs be produced by the likes of ELECSA etc if they don't comply?

Its because the Scams think they make the rules??

 

[Deleted member 26818]

The word 'may' is a way of expressing possibility, which implies other ways are available. It's not a definitive order.

Don't you just love the English language?!?! :smilielol5:

All,this means, is that you may use a MEIWC instead of an EIC.

No it doesn't say "every individual modified circuit" it says "for each circuit altered or extended".

Do you think that Reg 314.4 should state "every individual" circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board rather than "each".

 

[rustynails]

as its been mentioned with the old elecsa minor works certificate you were able to test three circuits. The ammendment 3 certs on the online system are one circuit per cert at a cost of £1 each. If you use the system it can get quite costly If you've been and done a few little jobs at one property. I've not found any downloadable new certs yet. The only way to get the new ones is to pay for them now.

 

[Breeze]

IMO They should be issuing an installation certificate if they are altering more than 1 point or more than one circuit

 

[Midwest]

as its been mentioned with the old elecsa minor works certificate you were able to test three circuits. The ammendment 3 certs on the online system are one circuit per cert at a cost of £1 each. If you use the system it can get quite costly If you've been and done a few little jobs at one property. I've not found any downloadable new certs yet. The only way to get the new ones is to pay for them now.

Yep, I've been caught out by that. You could use an EIC if altering more than a couple of circuits, obviously more tests need to be carried out than for a MWC, but it would save clogging up the clients inbox with Certsure emails!

 

[Robert Turnbull]

Yep, I've been caught out by that. You could use an EIC if altering more than a couple of circuits, obviously more tests need to be carried out than for a MWC, but it would save clogging up the clients inbox with Certsure emails!

I would just list the circuits on a EIC you can state the work done on the first page and if you don't feel the need to do all the tests on the EIC then you could N/A Them.

 

[Midwest]

Could do that I suppose, but N/A major parts of any certificate could be frowned on? End of the day, the customer will pay for the certs' whatever.

 

[Robert Turnbull]

Could do that I suppose, but N/A major parts of any certificate could be frowned on? End of the day, the customer will pay for the certs' whatever.

Who would be frowning ?? The extent of the works should be clearly stated along with any readings required

 

[davesparks]

Yep, I've been caught out by that. You could use an EIC if altering more than a couple of circuits, obviously more tests need to be carried out than for a MWC, but it would save clogging up the clients inbox with Certsure emails!

Testing is the same for the circuits regardless of the type of certificate being issued, it's just the amount of results you have to record that changes.

 

[Midwest]

For an EIC you have to measure and record Ipf, Ze, verify connections of protective conductors and locations if not obvious, record supply protective device details, maximum demand, main switch details, recommendation date of next inspection. As far as I'm aware, those details are not required for a MIWC. That additional testing and documentation , was what I was referring to.

 

[davesparks]

For an EIC you have to measure and record Ipf, Ze, verify connections of protective conductors and locations if not obvious, record supply protective device details, maximum demand, main switch details, recommendation date of next inspection. As far as I'm aware, those details are not required for a MIWC. That additional testing and documentation , was what I was referring to.

You still check all of the basic requirements though, it's just that there is a single sentence on the minor works mentioning this rather than a full record as on the EIC.

 

[Midwest]

You still check all of the basic requirements though, it's just that there is a single sentence on the minor works mentioning this rather than a full record as on the EIC.

So you do an Ipf & Ze on minor works?

 

[davesparks]

So you do an Ipf & Ze on minor works?

No, that's not what I said is it? I said you still check all of the basic requirements, which includes bonding etc.
If I think it necessary I'll test Zdb and PEFC, I'm not so daft as to blindly test only the things which have a box for the results.
Do you ignore the r1+rN test when testing a ring just because there isn't a box to write the number in on a model EIC?

 

[Midwest]

No, that's not what I said is it? I said you still check all of the basic requirements, which includes bonding etc.
If I think it necessary I'll test Zdb and PEFC, I'm not so daft as to blindly test only the things which have a box for the results.
Do you ignore the r1+rN test when testing a ring just because there isn't a box to write the number in on a model EIC?

No I don't, but that's not my point. I don't believe you should pick and choice what tests to do and N/A others, just purely because you can put more circuits on an EIC than a MWC. If I'm told otherwise by my learned friends, then I stand corrected.