Opinions please

[fattony]

Due to a hefty work schedule I had to employe a sub contractor electrician, 1 man band 3rd party accredited etc, the work was in a domestic dwelling and was a new circuit.

I asked for the certificate upon completion and his response was you didn't ask me to test it, I'm still a little puzzled by this, I employed someone who was skilled and qualified and for the hefty day rate expect them to know their obligations regarding certification.

what's your thoughts on this, am I in the wrong for not asking him to test it?

thanks

 

[andyb]

He obviously should of tested his work and handed over to you the test results for your certificate.
In this case I give the subbie a blank copy of whatever certificate is required and expect it returned fully filled out.

 

[Leesparkykent]

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the others. You hired someone to carry out a job on your behalf, and therefore the certification should be coming from you rather than the subby. I presume the contract for the work was with you and not with the subby.

When I have a subby doing work for me I get them to write out a rough test cert, I then do them on the computer and get them to print/sign the relevant parts. Helps being an AC as have the QS system.

 

[fattony]

I'm not sure I agree entirely with the others. You hired someone to carry out a job on your behalf, and therefore the certification should be coming from you rather than the subby. I presume the contract for the work was with you and not with the subby.

Yes the contract was with me, I see your point but as a minimum I should have test results in that case and it would be down to me to either verify the results and write up a certificate?

you wouldn't install energise and walk away would you?

 

[fattony]

He obviously should of tested his work and handed over to you the test results for your certificate.
In this case I give the subbie a blank copy of whatever certificate is required and expect it returned fully filled out.

Agreed, minimum I should have r1+r2, IR, Zs etc and I could the do a certificate based on that and have the option to verify the results if chosen

 

[Risteard]

When I have a subby doing work for me I get them to write out a rough test cert, I then do them on the computer and get them to print/sign the relevant parts. Helps being an AC as have the QS system.

Absolutely. If a rough cert was handed to them to fill out then that is different.

 

[Risteard]

Yes the contract was with me, I see your point but as a minimum I should have test results in that case and it would be down to me to either verify the results and write up a certificate?

you wouldn't install energise and walk away would you?

No, I woulndn't energise an installation before initial verification but when you sub jobs out to others it becomes complex.

I sub a lot to other firms on non-domestic jobs but would completely expect certification to be solely their concern unless this had been discussed with me beforehand.

In my opinion there was a lack of communication about this between you and the subby.

 

[NDG Elecs]

I would probably just pay him £30 less, do the testing and EIC myself, carefully check over the work, and then delete his number from my phone!

 

[Risteard]

I would probably just pay him £30 less

I think we first need to establish precisely what the subby was asked to do. He may have been under the impression that it was to be inspected and tested by the OP.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I think we first need to establish precisely what the subby was asked to do. He may have been under the impression that it was to be inspected and tested by the OP.

Regardless of who thought who was responsible for what if the subbie installed a new circuit it should not have been energised without relevant tests. So the subbie is at fault. If he thought he wasn't responsible for testing the circuit should have been left disconnected.

 

[sparksburnout]

Definitely bad communication on both sides. The person contracting the stubby should assume the senior position and as such take responsibility for the subby. All he needed to say was "I am too busy to get involved in this and I want you to do the entire job and provide me with a certificate at the end of it, mate, are you comfortable with this?". The subby should have also communicated better but in my opinion the burden of responsibility lies with the senior person, it always did in any firm I worked for.

 

[fattony]

Regardless of who thought who was responsible for what if the subbie installed a new circuit it should not have been energised without relevant tests. So the subbie is at fault. If he thought he wasn't responsible for testing the circuit should have been left disconnected.

agreed, I've offered to pay 80% and will pay the final 20% once I receive the eic, upto him if he wants to get it done

 

[Risteard]

Regardless of who thought who was responsible for what if the subbie installed a new circuit it should not have been energised without relevant tests.

I have already stated that. That aspect is not in question. But there has been a severe lack of communication which has allowed this to happen.

 

[Risteard]

Definitely bad communication on both sides. The person contracting the stubby should assume the senior position and as such take responsibility for the subby. All he needed to say was "I am too busy to get involved in this and I want you to do the entire job and provide me with a certificate at the end of it, mate, are you comfortable with this?". The subby should have also communicated better but in my opinion the burden of responsibility lies with the senior person, it always did in any firm I worked for.

Absolutely 100% agree.

 

[PEG]

I ,for one,feel you should have made these arrangements,prior to the job starting. Are you saying he has done no testing,or just not provided you with the results?

Without knowing the details of your pre-job discussion,he could well have done complete,thorough testing,to ensure safety and compliance,and merely retained the paperwork. Or nothing.

Remember,he was only there,under your instruction,and without any proof to the contrary,he could state that testing was agreed to be your responsibility.

In the scale of things,check,test,and move on,wiser for the experience.

Many years ago,i did some work for a fella who owned a granite machining operation,started it too quick to agree all what was to be done,and had a major falling out,at bill time...

Upshot was,his insurance inspector landed two days after,wanted to see conformity certificates for some kit...i had em'...

Long story short,we sorted,and i went on to do some major jobs for him,over the next few years...but the ground rules were forged in iron!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I don't know.
This is not an agency worker turning up on site with half a dozen other agency workers to install part of an installation to be tested by others.
This is someone who either advertises the fact that they are 3rd party accredited, or has answered in the affirmative when asked.
As such they should know that Part P will require the circuit be notified and will also know the circuit will require testing.
Yes a miscommunication, but whose?
If I were to be asked to install a circuit in a domestic, one of the first things I'd be enquiringly about is notification.