MW or EIC?...........

[Deleted member 9648]

Wired two RCD sockets on a radial today next to a sub-DB in a large factory unit. The new circuit was connected to an existing redundant 20a MCB which had served a control item which I'd disconnected a while back. Now based on the possibly iffy logic that because the protective device was already in place I decided that I'd get away with a MW because I wasn't adding anything to the existing DB.
Truth is I just couldnt be assed to gather the plethora of information required for an EIC to be correctly filled in for such a p***yass job.
A MW seemed more than adequate...Preparing now for a right good telling off.

 

[westward10]

EIC

 

[Pete999]

MNEW you are extending / altering an existing circuit imo.

 

[westward10]

In his words New circuit

 

[Pete999]

In his words New circuit

Yes must admit, missed that mention, just skimmed the post, thinking more about it I'm leaning more your way although it could be argued that because there is an existing CB I change my mind Westy, EIC, it has to be.

 

[andyb]

My view is that Westward is correct in that it's a new circuit and requires a eic if you go by the book.
But I'd probally do as Wirepuller did and issue a mwc for this job, the mcb was already in place and if it supplied a socket already there and you extended it to the 2 new sockets there'd be no discussion, a mwc would be issued.

 

[Pete999]

In his words New circuit

My view is that Westward is correct in that it's a new circuit and requires a eic if you go by the book.
But I'd probally do as Wirepuller did and issue a mwc for this job, the mcb was already in place and if it supplied a socket already there and you extended it to the 2 new sockets there'd be no discussion, a mwc would be issued.

That was my first thought Andy it's got to be an EIC , a contentious issue.

 

[Wilko]

Preparing now for a right good telling off.

Well, I just go home if I want one of those ...

 

[Dave OCD]

When you think about it a MWC has more than adequate information to certify that this sort of job is safe and fit for purpose. Whereas an EIC would add an hour to the job, nonsense really.

 

[Octopus]

A MWC noting the cable type and size ....................... would be adequate ....

The EIC was perfect until they added all the unnecessary tick boxes .....

 

[westward10]

It is irrelevant whether the protective device is existing or not it is a new circuit.

 

[Octopus]

It is irrelevant whether the protective device is existing or not it is a new circuit.

I'm sure the OP said he had removed the previous redundant cable from the MCB first ...................

 

[Ian1981]

Just do what most people do and write the results in pen on the wall adjacent to the DB.
You know ze 0.12 etc etc.

Tho in all seriousness the trauma of trying to take a ze to a functioning installation just because a couple of sockets have been added.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Thanks for the input chaps, I think technically an EIC would be the correct thing. The MCB was in place, the previous circuit connected to it had been disconnected, but nevertheless I connected a new and completely different circuit to it.
But I suspect I'll be trying to justify a MW for this sort of thing more and more in the future. As Dave OCD says, the time and effort an EIC now involves is a sledgehammer to crack a nut for this sort of thing. It's really designed for major works or new installations. Whenever I'm faced with compiling an EIC I cant help thinking we need something intermediate between a MW and EIC, say for a maximum of 1 new circuit. I confess in the past I have extended or spurred from existing circuits just to avoid an EIC when compiling one would be a pain, such as in commercial/government premises where access to the required areas is nigh on impossible without a major faf.

 

[FSU]

In a perfect world you could easily get your hands on the most recent EICR and then copy all of the info over such as Ze and the tick boxes to your EIC. Then you'd only have to perform the same tests as you would with a minor works

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I have done that before FSU, but really that's not correct as you cannot be certain things haven't changed since the EICR was compiled.

 

[Octopus]

In a perfect world you could easily get your hands on the most recent EICR and then copy all of the info over such as Ze and the tick boxes to your EIC. Then you'd only have to perform the same tests as you would with a minor works

Not sure I agree with that ..............I may consider this route IF I had done the EICR ......... but use somebody else's figures ........... no

 

[ipf]

I do plenty of small installs in a factory where I did an EICR in 2016. Plenty dis boards so I just do a zs at board in question and cert to suit.
Similar to WP, today used an swa, which used to feed a portacabin, for a small compressor in a new quick build...so it ticked the right boxes.
Trouble is, I don't want to start ticking another load of boxes, either....pain in the butt.

 

[Gavin John Hyde]

In a perfect world you could easily get your hands on the most recent EICR and then copy all of the info over such as Ze and the tick boxes to your EIC. Then you'd only have to perform the same tests as you would with a minor works

Thats assuming the eicr is worth the paper it is printed on and has not been done by a drive by cowboy in his bodge job van.
all well until you copy the results from such an eicr and they are made up when really the place is a death trap...

 

[ipf]

Another problem I find is with ind/com kitchen work, maybe in schools or shopping centres. They may be small jobs, such as gas cut out panel supplies. It's virtually impossible to get any supply info or access. In such cases it has to be a case of noting on the cert.
Imagine trying to get info or access at Manchester airport or Liverpool Echo arena. It's impossible....and, sometimes, your dealing with awkward sods who don't want to know.

 

[Zdb]

If it's not practical to carry out a Ze test I would rather put the Ze from the current EICR and leave a note on the EIC than leave the box blank.

I asked this question to my NICEIC assessor and he said that it is acceptable as long as the EICR certificate number is stated in the notes on the EIC.

Obviously not ideal but better than LIM

 

[Richard Burns]

I would agree that an EIC would be technically correct (just).
However if you considered the job as a long period job, you came in removed the old cable and replaced it with a new cable and also removed the old accessories on the end of circuit and put new ones in, still the same old circuit just with a new cable and accessories!
If the job had been done in stages each one would have been a minor works.

 

[Zdb]

I thought new cables meant new circuit?

 

[Wilko]

... you came in removed the old cable and replaced it with a new cable and also removed the old accessories on the end of circuit and put new ones in, still the same old circuit just with a new cable and accessories! If the job had been done in stages each one would have been a minor works.

For some reason reminded me of this classic

 

[Flanders]

For this situation there should a cert for when you are just installing one or two circuits as others as said its not always posible to access the main incoming supply of large installations , You can not put LIM on a eir so what do you do ?fill the report with N/As .

 

[ipf]

For this situation there should a cert for when you are just installing one or two circuits as others as said its not always posible to access the main incoming supply of large installations , You can not put LIM on a eir so what do you do ?fill the report with N/As .

Depends if that means 'Non Applicable' or 'No Access'.

 

[Flanders]

Depends if that means 'Non Applicable' or 'No Access'.

HA ha never thought of that