Minor Works Certificate – Details of Departures from BS7671?

[Deleted member 26818]

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.)

So the addition itself, would not comply, and you would either have to fix the Ring, or down rate the CPD.
Would lack of RCD protection to existing socket-outlets, or existing cables concealed in walls affect the safety of the spur, or whether the spur complied?

 

[Risteard]

"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?

To me I would read that as the circuit which you are certifying by means of a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate must comply with the Regulations as they currently stand. You are also required to note any defects which you have noticed during the course of the installation work. These defects therefore will not apply to the circuit you are certifying but to other parts of the installation. You don't need to go out of your way looking for defects but if you notice them then there is a duty of care to report that to the client.

That's my reading of it anyway.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Would you be certifying the circuit, or would you just be certifying the addition?
If you were for instance to change a socket-outlet for whatever reason, would you then have to ensure the rest of the circuit complied with current Regulations?

 

[Richard Burns]

Spin
"So the addition itself, would not comply, and you would either have to fix the Ring, or down rate the CPD." Yes
If you were to install the spur as an RCD socket, then the socket would comply, but if the cable you installed were in the wall, then that cable would not comply, easiest to provide an RCD at the origin of the circuit, though presumably if you were considering it was just the bit you did that needed to comply then you could install an RCD at the point were you took the spur out of the ring!

 

[Richard Burns]

post 33 I would say you would be certifying the design and construction and inspection of the addition were OK and the testing of the circuit was OK. Because I would not expect to fully assess the existing wiring for safe zones, etc. only to perform the testing on the circuit and ensure that complies.

 

[Risteard]

If you were for instance to change a socket-outlet for whatever reason, would you then have to ensure the rest of the circuit complied with current Regulations?

Presuming you are referring to a like-for-like change then this would be maintenance work, and a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate would not be required, and as such you would not be required to certify compliance with BS 7671 in its current form.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Seems the thread is getting a going off in different tangents.
I'll try to put my point of view, and cover all the tangents.
The introduction indicates that existing installations do not have to be upgraded if they complied with earlier editions.
We are required to assess the installation before making any addition or alteration, to ensure that the rating and condition of existing equipment is adequate for the altered circumstances. To my mind, adequate does not mean 'comply with current Regulations'.
We are required during construction and on completion of an addition or alteration, to inspect and test to verify that the requirements of the Regulation have been met.
We are further required to issue appropriate certification. I am not aware that maintenance is excluded from these requirements.
We are required when certifying an addition or alteration, to note any defects (where reasonably practicable) in the existing installation.
The existing cables and accessories of a circuit would to my mind be part of the existing installation.
We are required to rectify any defects or omissions found in the work that the certificate relates to, before issuing the certification.
I do not see that this requires us to rectify any defects in the existing circuit, especially as we are required to note any defects on the certificate.

 

[Risteard]

Fair enough, and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are wrong. Simply that I would interpret the requirements differently. Must have a look over the Guidance Notes etc. to see if they shed any light on the intentions of JPEL/64 (whilst acknowledging, of course, that they are simply an opinion and do not take the place of BS 7671).

 

[Richard Burns]

Seems the thread is getting a going off in different tangents.
I'll try to put my point of view, and cover all the tangents.
The introduction indicates that existing installations do not have to be upgraded if they complied with earlier editions. Yes no problem
We are required to assess the installation before making any addition or alteration, to ensure that the rating and condition of existing equipment is adequate for the altered circumstances. To my mind, adequate does not mean 'comply with current Regulations'. I would agree with this
We are required during construction and on completion of an addition or alteration, to inspect and test to verify that the requirements of the Regulation have been met. Yes
We are further required to issue appropriate certification. I am not aware that maintenance is excluded from these requirements. Need the certification. I agree that BS7671 does not exclude this for maintenance (the word "may" is a bit unclear) however Part P guidance specifically states BS7671 does not require this only recommends.
We are required when certifying an addition or alteration, to note any defects (where reasonably practicable) in the existing installation. Yes
The existing cables and accessories of a circuit would to my mind be part of the existing installation.
Initially certainly, and certainly not designed or installed by you only modified.
We are required to rectify any defects or omissions found in the work that the certificate relates to, before issuing the certification. Yes for the work to which the certificate relates (but how do you separate an addition from the circuit it is attached to, particularly in testing?)
I do not see that this requires us to rectify any defects in the existing circuit, especially as we are required to note any defects on the certificate. Ah hmm Need to rectify defects in the existing circuit that would cause the addition to fail compliance and need to ensure existing circuit is adequate.

You raise some interesting points there and have made me re read the regulations (I am currently referring to AMD1 because it is available). I think that you are right there, to comply with the requirements of the regulations you would need to ensure that the circuit containing the modification was adequate for the intended use of the modification and that the circuit allowed the modification to comply with BS7671 (current) but I would normally try to rectify any defects in a circuit that I have added to, where practicable. Although I would not route cables or change cables (for csa) so I would not necessarily be making the existing circuit up to BS7671.
Oh, I have changed my view on this!, I am quite surprised!

 

[JamesBrownLive]

Do you not think the RCD situation is kinda unique? The regs are not retroactive, everyone knows that, but the case of providing RCD protection almost seems to be an exception to that.

As adding sockets to existing circuits is quite a common job, this is a situation that everyone is going to be faced with. As I said earlier, in the case of the OP, his assessor gave advice that indicated he considered that the whole cct needed to be protected, not just the new spur.

This certainly seems to be one of those situations whereby the customer is going to think that they are being taken for a ride, especially if their current setup, ccu wise, precludes the addition of RCDs or RCBOs. What started out as a relatively minor addition, now looks like a board change is required.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No I don't believe so.
I think most of the problems stem from either people not understanding the requirements for RCD protection, or if I were cynical, an attempt to obtain extra work.

 

[malcolmsanford]

I'm of the same opinion as spin that it is only your work that you need to certify and comment on that certification about the existing installation.

RFC are always a challenge and if your doing a job that is associated with them on a lot of older installations then you most often as not have problem of interconnected rings, etc etc. and what turns out to be an hours job often can unearth all sorts of problems.

I have always certificated with a MEIWC the work that I have done and noted any comments on the installation as I found. I often though rather than fit a RCD FCU for the extra socket, tried to fit a piggy back enclosure next to the main CU, if space permitted, and disconnected the RFC from the MCB/Fuse and fed the enclosure from the now empty way in the CU and re terminate the RFC into the RCD, cost wise there is little difference between an enclosure, RCD and a normal FCU and a RCD FCU, it will obviously entail a little more time but it will leave the installation in a better condition.

Of course this would entail you making sure that you have the correct polarity especially between N-E along the ring as often there maybe a JB hidden where this is reversed, if that is the cast then you have to go back to the original FCU RCD, but every job is different of course, which makes this so much fun.

 

[JamesBrownLive]

Of course this would entail you making sure that you have the correct polarity especially between N-E along the ring as often there maybe a JB hidden where this is reversed, if that is the cast then you have to go back to the original FCU RCD, but every job is different of course, which makes this so much fun.

But according to the OPs assessor (by his omission of mentioning it) the FCU RCD is NOT an acceptable option in this instance.

 

[JamesBrownLive]

No I don't believe so.
I think most of the problems stem from either people not understanding the requirements for RCD protection

And is it any wonder. I'm still no closer to understanding if an additonal socket added to a ring, or even a radial for that matter can comply with the regs by use of the 'FCU RCD' option.
My gut feeling, given what happen to the OP is that this is not an acceptable method.

 

[TPES]

Technically an EIC as the characteristics of the whole circuit have been altered.

I'd argue against an EIC for an rcd spur feeding the additional wiring.

I changed a 60898 for a 61009 as part of a minor works job but issued an EIC due to the change of protective device.

My assessor said that was not needed and just a MWC would be enough. He said although I'm adding 30ma protection I'm not actually changing the characteristics of the protective device, still the same 6A and 6ka so MWC is fine.

I was surprised because I'm sure I was told different when I did my 2391