Schedule Of Inspections question

[malcolmsanford]

Sorry guys could someone tell me what a prescribed zone is inside a CU. Unless you are extending the cables outside of the CU and your burying the extended cables then yesI would agree you could tick the box.

If you just removing an old CU and fitting a new then I can't see what zones you are talking about.

 

[Guest123]

Sorry guys could someone tell me what a prescribed zone is inside a CU. Unless you are extending the cables outside of the CU and you bury the extended cables then your I would agree you could tick the box.

If you just removing an old CU and fitting a new then I can't see what zones you are talking about.

I agree.

By ticking this box having simply unscrewed one box from the wall and refixed another, you are confirming that work you havn't actually carried out complies with the regs......makes no sense to me at all.


All IMO.:earmuffs:

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You would in effect be carrying out a PIR on the rest of the installation.

 

[Edd]

If your Changing a CU then you must be taking responsibility for the circuits you reconnect, tecnically a PIR should be carried out on the instalation. its your responsibility to make sure that the circuits being reconected are safe. so a PIR and EIC would be needed.. I usually note on the EIC that the cert covers both therefore I normally put a LIM or N/V in the routing of cables box...

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If your Changing a CU then you must be taking responsibility for the circuits you reconnect, tecnically a PIR should be carried out on the instalation. its your responsibility to make sure that the circuits being reconected are safe. so a PIR and EIC would be needed.. I usually note on the EIC that the cert covers both therefore I normally put a LIM or N/V in the routing of cables box...

It's quite a common misconception that by issuing an EIC, for an addition or alteration, the issuer is taking responsibility for the existing installation.
This has never been the case, and the IET has taken steps to try to disuade people of this misconception.
The notes on the rear of the 16th and the 17th edition EIC model forms both indicate that EICs should only be used for initial certification and are not be used for PIRs.
Due to the number of people it was found were using LIM on EICs, an addition to the notes at the bottom of the 17th edition schedule of inspection model form was made, which states LIM is "applicable for a periodic inspection only."
In both editions, there is a box for comments on the existing installation, and both editions have a Regulation requiring that any defects or ommisions revealed during I&T, be made good before the Certificate is issued.
We now have the 17th 1st amendment, Which has introduced separate schedules for initial certification, and condition reports.
There is no reference to the term LIM in the model form schedule for initial certification. It is now only refered to in the schedule for a EICR.
We still have the note on the rear of the EIC informing us that the EIC is to be used only for initial certification, and not for a Periodic inspection.
We still have the box for comments on the existing installation.
And we still have the requirement not to issue a Certificate untill any defects or omissions revealed during I&T are made good.
By using an EIC to cover both initial and periodic certification, you would not be complying with BS7671.

 

[Edd]

I agree theres a misconseption that issuing an EIC for an addition or alteration does not make you responsible for the whole installation. I was going with the OP about a CU change. If you change a CU the circuits you reconnect Will have to be shown to be safe. You cannot reconect an unsafe circuit, YOU will be liable.
As I said above the only way to cover your self would be to issue a PIR and an EIC.
But when changing a CU and filling in an EIC all the circuits you reconect will be on the cert, any non compliances will then be noted and in the Schedule of inspections when it says routing of the cables,,,,unless you can confirm the circuits you have reconected comply then a N/V should be added.
in my case the computer program only allows LIM N/A a tick or cross,, so in my case i put LIM. and as all the necessary tests have now been carried out a seprate PIR is not issued just noted on the cert.
am I doing this wrong??? Thanks

 

[malcolmsanford]

Sorry Edd you are indeed filling out the SoI for an EIC wrong if you place a LIM in it. And to be a bit pedantic a N/V should also not be placed on it either.

It is really quite clear on page 340 of the BRB that you can place a tick or a N/A for an initial verification


And a tick, cross N/A and a LIM for a PIR.

As Spin as pointed out the new amendment as revamped all the forms and you now have different SoI for initial verification and the EICR.

 

[Edd]

Thanks guys, looks like when changing a CU a seprate PIR and EIC will then need to be issued. just need to talk the clients into it!!

 

[JUD]

I would say that if you're work involves a CU change only then I would put N/A for the routing of cables as it doesn't apply (as in Not Applicable) to the work you are responsible for on the EIC.

 

[Robinson]

I agree theres a misconseption that issuing an EIC for an addition or alteration does not make you responsible for the whole installation. I was going with the OP about a CU change. If you change a CU the circuits you reconnect Will have to be shown to be safe. You cannot reconect an unsafe circuit, YOU will be liable.
As I said above the only way to cover your self would be to issue a PIR and an EIC.
But when changing a CU and filling in an EIC all the circuits you reconect will be on the cert, any non compliances will then be noted and in the Schedule of inspections when it says routing of the cables,,,,unless you can confirm the circuits you have reconected comply then a N/V should be added.
in my case the computer program only allows LIM N/A a tick or cross,, so in my case i put LIM. and as all the necessary tests have now been carried out a seprate PIR is not issued just noted on the cert.
am I doing this wrong??? Thanks

Hi guys been a while . Sorry i not imputed much recent. this thread maybe at its end but still wanted to say I agree with above but what is considered unsafe>? Sounds silly but if you have very low IR readings or a broken ring, or say Shared neutral. As i have had this and where done a CU change. And i be honest i dont carry out a Full PIR or EICR before every CU change. so when faced with a issue such as what you do. ? I noted on my cert a very low IR reading on a Ring (below 1 mega) and no R1+R2 on lighting and my asseser came to see and he said nothing about not allowing that. And really it was a possible problem one that certainly needed further investigation, but he said as long as you noted it. that was a EIC. Surely changing to a RCD board would make it more safe.