Minor Works Certificate – Details of Departures from BS7671?

[Risteard]

As spinlondon has said Departures are not just non-compliances but the use of say new innovations which had not been considered when the Regulations were published but which must afford an equivalent degree of safety as would compliance with the Regulations.

 

[kill the witch]

Even though you are only doing a 'minor works' job, that circuit you worked upon must be fully compliant with the 17th edition. (1st amendment after 1st Jan 2012). According to Regulation 120.3 of BS7671 'The resulting degree of safety of the installation shall be not less than that obtained by compliance with the Regulations'. By not fitting an RCD to the circuit, the circuit is less safe than full compliance with the Regulations (ie. fitting an RCD). Departures like use of old colours does not affect the safety of the circuit. To pass that minor works assessment, I believe you should have fitted an RCD protected socket outlet to every socket on that circuit but at almost £30 per socket it would work out quite expensive for the customer. Sounds crazy, but the regulations are regulations and non-compliance with the regulations means non compliance with the EWR 1989 which is statutory.

 

[Octopus]

An interesting thread and as usual its obvious that we sparkies don't have a consistent view on the regs.

How for gods sake do the people who write the regs expect Joe Public to understand them if they make NO attempt to market and advertise these MOST COMMON situations. Its left to us to try and get things done to the regs and then the bloke down the pub comes and does what the client wants ignoring the regs all together.

Rant over.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Even though you are only doing a 'minor works' job, that circuit you worked upon must be fully compliant with the 17th edition. (1st amendment after 1st Jan 2012). According to Regulation 120.3 of BS7671 'The resulting degree of safety of the installation shall be not less than that obtained by compliance with the Regulations'. By not fitting an RCD to the circuit, the circuit is less safe than full compliance with the Regulations (ie. fitting an RCD). Departures like use of old colours does not affect the safety of the circuit. To pass that minor works assessment, I believe you should have fitted an RCD protected socket outlet to every socket on that circuit but at almost £30 per socket it would work out quite expensive for the customer. Sounds crazy, but the regulations are regulations and non-compliance with the regulations means non compliance with the EWR 1989 which is statutory.

Don't forget that this is a domestic installation so is not covered by EAWR 1989.

 

[Chr!s]

Don't forget that this is a domestic installation so is not covered by EAWR 1989.

I would disagree there IQ, it covers all aspects of electrical work.

Regards Chris

 

[kill the witch]

Don't forget that this is a domestic installation so is not covered by EAWR 1989.

I have no idea where you're getting that idea from. Chr!s is correct. It does cover all aspects of electrical work. Read Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 Regulation 3 (1)(a).

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yes it would be in force while the installation work was in progress.
Once the installation work was completed it would no longer apply.

 

[SW1970]

Bit of an old thread being dragged up but the new Contactum CP range RCBOs are compatible with the older boards by the use of an adaptor that TLC sells. There's only just enough room at the top for cabling on the larger main units, I think not enough room on the garage size units.

 

[JamesBrownLive]

A couple of interesting points have been raised here but there are obviously some conflicting views that need clarification.

Some have said that compliance can be attained by fitting a RCD FCU and spuring the socket off that, one person said that you would need to add RCD protection to all the existing sockets on the ring (via changing the sockets themselves to the type that incorporates an RCD) but what is most interesting, is that neither or those proposed solutions was suggested by the NICEIC bloke who was doing the assessment.

I guess what it boils down to is whether or not you interpret the rules to mean that if you add a socket to a cct, then you have to bring the entire cct up to current standards. It seems from what this particular assessor has stated that he falls squarely in that camp.

Clearly though, some people don't believe this is the case and just fit an RCD FCU and spur.

I'd just like to know the definitive answer.

Cheers

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I guess it's open to interpretation.
In the introduction of BS7671, the second chapter states:
"The Regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations. Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."
How would you interpret this chapter?
Then there are Regulations 632.4:
"Defects or ommissions revealed during inspection and testing of the installation work covered by the Certificate shall be made good before the Certificate is issued"
and 633.2:
"The contractor or other person responsible for the new work, or a person authorized to act on their behalf, shall record on the Electrical Installation Certificate or the Minor Electrical Installation Worcks Certificate, any defects found, so far as is reasonably practicable, in the existing installation."
If we are required to upgrade the existing installation, why would there be a requirement to record any defects found?

Why would we be required to record defects or ommissions in the existing installation, if we are required to upgrade the existing installation?
Especially as we are required to make good any defects or ommissions before issuing the Certificate.

 

[JamesBrownLive]

You're spot on Spin, but in this case the OPs interpretation has cost him an additional £450, ouch.
I guess this proves you just need to be real careful with any jobs that you use as examples of workmanship, come assessment time.

So which camp to you fall in... Do you believe that adding an additional socket to a cct means you need to bring the entire cct up to regs, or only the socket you are presently installing?

Cheers

 

[Richard Burns]

One problem you have here is the use of the words "installation work" as a means of putting things in place and "installation" as the electrical system for the property (or the circuit).

When installing an additional spur socket you are only installing a length of cable, back box and socket face plate. One could then say that this is the installation to which the certificate refers and so only defects or omissions in the bit you installed (e.g. wrong polarity at that socket) must be put right.

However in order to test and inspect this section that you have installed, your testing must cover the rest of that circuit, at the minimum. It would not really be possible to only inspect that new cable and socket and state that it was compliant as you may have a broken ring etc. in the rest of the circuit.
So you may then find defects or omissions in the rest of the circuit, which, as they were determined during inspection and testing, should be put right.

Again if you are looking at the CU and see there are no RCDs and there is another domestic socket circuit, ahh is this part of an inspection? should it be put right! I think here this is not an inspection just an observation and would not need upgrading only noting as a defect of the existing installation on the certificate.

Overall I tend to think that any installation work done involves the whole circuit which has been modified and that this circuit should be to the standard of the current regulations. But practicality may intervene and say it is only the small section on which I am working that needs compliance, but may be difficult to justify.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Richard, would a broken Ring affect the safety of the additional spur?
Would a broken Ring affect whether the additional spur complied with the Regulations?

 

[Richard Burns]

Spin, This was just an example; but if you had a non continuous ring then you would have installed a spur on a series of spurs, as it is not designed as a radial circuit, and you would then be in non compliance with the regulations as a non fused spur must only have one socket outlet and you could have many (although I would say that that socket would be safe you could well overload the cable for the whole circuit depending on where the break was.)

 

[SW1970]

When I test rings I always test L and N on the figure of eight right after L and CPC. It's a bit belt and braces but the risks involved in broken ring finals scares the hell out of me.