Testing somebody else’s work!

[BigSi]

Just after a bit of advice.


I do a lot of work for a builder, who has asked me to test and issue an EIC for a job that he is doing.
The story behind the job is that he used to be a sparks and started the job before Part P came into effect. Due to unforeseen circumstances with the house holder the job was never completed, and has been sitting dormant for a long time (a VERY long time!).

The builder had recently been asked to complete the building works, but as he gave up being a sparky (when Part P came along), he wants me to just add the finishing touches and test the installation (building control requires a certificate).

Could I issue an EIC with the builder signing the Design & Construction parts, and myself filling out the Testing section? I’ve seen past examples of the builder’s electrical work, and it all seems pretty good. The only issue I can really see is the configuration of the consumer unit with respect to RCD protection (would have been done to the 16th edition).

 

[topquark]

Yes, NORMALLY (read on) in this case, if he's able and willing to sign the design and install part of a (three part) certificate then you can sign off on the testing of it. You CANNOT however sign the installation part (assuming you were not supervising it).

HOWEVER, if it's been done to 16th Edition then it will need to be upgraded!

 

[truckster]

I am pretty sure your Part P scheme provider would say this is a big no no. If you didn't install it how can you say it has been installed correctly? I think the best you can offer is a PIR

I can see this one running...

 

[BigSi]

I suspect that the consumer unit might need upgrading, but Im pretty sure everything else is ok. The guy used to be a sparky, so Ive seen his work, he just wanted to concentrate on the building side, so gave up doing any electrical work.

 

[Paul.M]

Ask the building control if a PIR would be acceptable in this case. Otherwise the builder would have to pay the lbc to test and sign off.

Or how about upgrading the cu giving an EIC for the cu plus a PIR on the circuits? Lbc may be happier with that?

 

[topquark]

Ask the building control if a PIR would be acceptable in this case. Otherwise the builder would have to pay the lbc to test and sign off.

Or how about upgrading the cu giving an EIC for the cu plus a PIR on the circuits? Lbc may be happier with that?

I think that's a much better option paul.m!

 

[telectrix]

i agree. upgrade the board to dual RCD . EICfor the board will include testing of all circuits anyway. but check with LABC. as long as they're happy.

 

[roukel01]

IF the plans were passed BEFORE part P came along and work started and was designed to the 16th edition, it can still be signed off as a 16th edition installation and it shouldn't need to be signed off to building control. (which was the case before Part P came along.

The same thing happened to me, we started a rewire a couple of years before part p came along and the rewire took 5 years to complete (due to customer doing his own building work as and when he could afford it)
I mentioned this to my Assessor when I had an inspection and he recommended it be signed off as a 16th edition install.

It was the same when Part P first came along, building control advised at the time that only plans that were passed AFTER part p came into affect required the installation to be signed off.

BUT, I would check with local building control first!!

 

[topquark]

IF the plans were passed BEFORE part P came along and work started and was designed to the 16th edition, it can still be signed off as a 16th edition installation and it shouldn't need to be signed off to building control. (which was the case before Part P came along.

The same thing happened to me, we started a rewire a couple of years before part p came along and the rewire took 5 years to complete (due to customer doing his own building work as and when he could afford it)
I mentioned this to my Assessor when I had an inspection and he recommended it be signed off as a 16th edition install.

It was the same when Part P first came along, building control advised at the time that only plans that were passed AFTER part p came into affect required the installation to be signed off.

BUT, I would check with local building control first!!

Not come across that before, interesting! I think getting it past LABC might be fun.

 

[telectrix]

good point. but even if it was started as 16th, it could still be under part p ( i.e between 2005 and 2008 ).

 

[BigSi]

Thanks for the great replies guys.


Forgot to mention, he did say that if anything need doing, then go ahead and do it. He is quite happy for it to comply with the 17th edition as its now nearing completion.



I know there is a big stigma about signing off other peoples work, I’ve turned work away from other sparks because they wanted me to test and notify the works which I wasn’t prepared to do (they just didn’t want to join a CP scheme). I get a lot of work from this guy, and have known him for a while.

 

[DurhamSparky]

i would reconfigure box to 17th or install rcbo's??

sign job of as a 3 part install....

 

[DurhamSparky]

oh and i have signed of other peoples work under this method..! i also get a set of test results from other spark who is not part p...!! and i compare my results to his!

again i use 3 part method and have a good look around as well... bonding / earthing etc..!

elecsa are happy with this method providing i DONT SIGN the first 2 boxes!