Certificate

Stoner

Bruthal wrote:

I guess then the non REC can wire 5 or 6 more lights and switches in, and its perfectly ok once they dont connect to a spare MCB.

So if I had a radial circuit with five points on it, I could add 3 or 4 on one at a time as long as I cabled them all back individually opened up the board and hooked them all into the one MCB one at a time.

Is that the logic here or am I missing something?

Risteard81

meercat wrote: »

A new circuit is installed irrespective of whether or not he connected it to a separate mcb

Only if you ignore the definition of a circuit given within Part 2 of ET101: "Part of an electrical installation supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrents by a single protective device."
By connecting into the same protective device, it is by definition one and the same circuit. This cannot be disputed.

Risteard81

metricspaces wrote: »

So if you say Restricted Electrical Works were not carried out then why would I ask for a Cert 3 when one is not required? I'll just be told one is not required, so why ask?

I never stated that Restricted Works weren't carried out - I simple pointed out that it is unclear whether the works would meet the legal definition of Restricted Works. Others pretend that they are infallible and that they know how a court would rule.

However I did clearly state numerous times that you have a right to request a certificate even for minor works, and that if requested the REC must provide one.

And yes, I am a RECI REC as well as an NICEIC Approved Contractor.

metricspaces

Thanks for all the replies. I'm going to go back to him and ask for a cert 3. I wanted to be sure it wasn't something unreasonable to ask for and end up being an awkward customer. Hopefully he'll give me the cert 3.

If I understand from the above posts, if the electrician believes the work he carried out was not Restricted Work then he'll probably look to charge me for a cert 3 as it involves carrying out some tests?

If the elecrtician agrees it was Restricted Works then he must supply a cert 3 free of charge. Is my understanding correct here?

EHP

Risteard81 wrote:

Only if you ignore the definition of a circuit given within Part 2 of ET101: "Part of an electrical installation supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrents by a single protective device." By connecting into the same protective device, it is by definition one and the same circuit. This cannot be disputed.

The definition of a Distribution Board is;

"An assembly of protective devices, including two or more fuses or circuit breakers, arranged for the distribution of electrical energy to final circuits or to other distribution boards."

I would say that all devices within the board form part of the board so once touched the board is modified.

metricspaces wrote:

If the elecrtician agrees it was Restricted Works then he must supply a cert 3 free of charge. Is my understanding correct here?

If he had supplied it from the start he could of charged for it as he legally has to supply it, now that he hasn't supplied it he is liable for disciplinary action from RECI should you report him. The ball is in your court now.

metricspaces

EHP wrote: »

If he had supplied it from the start he could of charged for it as he legally has to supply it, now that he hasn't supplied it he is liable for disciplinary action from RECI should you report him. The ball is in your court now.

Thanks! So I can always ask for a "Certificate" when an electrician carries out work in my house (regardless of whether it is Restricted Work).

In the case of non-Restricted Work I just get a normal "Certificate".

In the case of Restricted Work I must be provided with a "Certificate 3" (llike this here from HSA site)

So I guess I can ask for a "Certificate 3", if the electrician doesn't agree it requires one he'll just provide me a normal "Certificate". Is he legally obliged to supply a certificate for non-Restricted Work?

EHP

metricspaces wrote:

In the case of non-Restricted Work I just get a normal "Certificate".

metricspaces wrote:

In the case of Restricted Work I must be provided with a "Certificate 3" (l

In both cases you will get a Cert 3

Bruthal

Stoner wrote: »

So if I had a radial circuit with five points on it, I could add 3 or 4 on one at a time as long as I cabled them all back individually opened up the board and hooked them all into the one MCB one at a time.

Is that the logic here or am I missing something?

I meant if a new group of lights were wired back to DB and connected to MCB which already supplied other lights, then it seems that is not a modification of the DB according to some, or one at least.

Poster said the DB was not modified by connecting new wiring to existing circuit within the DB.


Bit bizarre and strange really. Which tells it's own story.

Risteard81

metricspaces wrote: »

If I understand from the above posts, if the electrician believes the work he carried out was not Restricted Work then he'll probably look to charge me for a cert 3 as it involves carrying out some tests?

If the elecrtician agrees it was Restricted Works then he must supply a cert 3 free of charge. Is my understanding correct here?

The work always involves "carrying out some tests" (in addition to inspection). Even minor works need to be safe. It will involve certification and administration that wouldn't otherwise exist, however.

As to whether he ever has to provide a certificate "free of charge" is a different matter - he can charge for whatever he wants, but if he quoted you a final price for a job which involved Controlled or Restricted Works then certification would certainly make up part of that job.

Risteard81

EHP wrote: »

Risteard81 wrote:

Only if you ignore the definition of a circuit given within Part 2 of ET101: "Part of an electrical installation supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrents by a single protective device." By connecting into the same protective device, it is by definition one and the same circuit. This cannot be disputed.

The definition of a Distribution Board is;

"An assembly of protective devices, including two or more fuses or circuit breakers, arranged for the distribution of electrical energy to final circuits or to other distribution boards."

I would say that all devices within the board form part of the board so once touched the board is modified.

metricspaces wrote:

If the elecrtician agrees it was Restricted Works then he must supply a cert 3 free of charge. Is my understanding correct here?

If he had supplied it from the start he could of charged for it as he legally has to supply it, now that he hasn't supplied it he is liable for disciplinary action from RECI should you report him. The ball is in your court now.

A distribution board is modified if you replace, add or remove devices from within it. Connecting cables into an existing circuit (by definition) within a DB would not, in my opinion, be modification of the DB. Altering an existing circuit must be minor works. (In IET Regs the actual definition of minor works are works not involving the provision of a new circuit. Unfortunately the ETCI Rules are not so clear, instead citing "examples" of minor works.)

I have proven through ET101 definitions, however, that it is indeed the modification of an existing circuit and not the provision of a new circuit.

Risteard81

Bruthal wrote: »

Stoner wrote: »

So if I had a radial circuit with five points on it, I could add 3 or 4 on one at a time as long as I cabled them all back individually opened up the board and hooked them all into the one MCB one at a time.

Is that the logic here or am I missing something?

Poster said the DB was not modified by connecting new wiring to existing circuit within the DB.

Bit bizarre and strange really. Which tells it's own story.

What tells its own story is how opinionated you are. How has adding into existing circuits involved modification of the DISTRIBUTION BOARD - NOT OF THE FINAL CIRCUIT OR THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION?

What qualifies you (or others such as 2011) to always pronounce infallible statements of doctrine on here? In fact 2011 is not an REC. Maybe you are or are not. The point is your opinions are not the only valid ones. Legal questions will always, ultimately, be answered by the courts and not infallible moderators on a forum.

Bruthal

Risteard81 wrote: »

What tells its own story is how opinionated you are.

Don't be afraid to have your own ones now..

EHP

Risteard81 wrote:

I have proven through ET101 definitions, however, that it is indeed the modification of an existing circuit and not the provision of a new circuit.

I would say anything you add or take within the board is a modification of the board and I would think RECI would have the same view, maybe it's time to ask them for clarification.

metricspaces

Bruthal wrote: »

Poster said the DB was not modified by connecting new wiring to existing circuit within the DB.

Bit bizarre and strange really. Which tells it's own story.

I've no expertise in this area. I don't know exactly what the electrician did. But I do no there is no new switch in the DB for my exterior light. So I assumed based on this that there is no new circuit. Is this assumption correct?

When someone says the work is "disappointing" or "bizarre and strange" without clarifying why, it is hard for me to understand why you have these opinions so it would be really helpful if you could explain.

The reason why the electrician took the power supply from the DB is because it is the closest area to get power from, caused the minimal amount of damage to inside the house, and has the least amount of wiring showing.

Risteard81

metricspaces wrote: »

But I do no there is no new switch in the DB for my exterior light. So I assumed based on this that there is no new circuit. Is this assumption correct?

If you are correct in stating that the wiring has been connected into an existing protective device then you are correct in stating that, by definition - as proven by me through the Definitions section in Part 2 of the ETCI National Rules for Electrical Installations, a new circuit has not been created. The issue of whether this comes within the definition of Restricted Electrical Works or Minor Works is clearly debateable (although some seem to pretend that it isn't).

metricspaces

EHP wrote: »

I would think RECI would have the same view, maybe it's time to ask them for clarification.

I contacted https://safeelectric.ie/contact-us/ and they said they don't answer questions to customers, that I just have to ask my electrician and if I'm not happy with his answer to ask another electrician. Not very useful for the customer!

Risteard81

EHP wrote: »

Risteard81 wrote:

I have proven through ET101 definitions, however, that it is indeed the modification of an existing circuit and not the provision of a new circuit.

I would say anything you add or take within the board is a modification of the board and I would think RECI would have the same view, maybe it's time to ask them for clarification.

Certainly you could ask RECI, although it must be remembered that RECI's opinion is also an opinion, as would be the CRU's (the new name for the CER).

Ultimately interpretation of legislation can only be decided by the courts.

Risteard81

metricspaces wrote: »

EHP wrote: »

I would think RECI would have the same view, maybe it's time to ask them for clarification.

I contacted https://safeelectric.ie/contact-us/ and they said they don't answer questions to customers, that I just have to ask my electrician and if I'm not happy with his answer to ask another electrician. Not very useful for the customer!

There really isn't any reason for you to contact RECI. As I said, if you want a certificate for the work (and I salute you for wanting certification for work) then ask for one. The REC must provide a certificate if requested.

Just tell him that even for minor works you have a right to request a certificate, and that if so requested it must be provided. This is clear from all relevant materials produced by both the CRU/CER and RECI.

EHP

metricspaces wrote:

and they said they don't answer questions to customers, that I just have to ask my electrician and if I'm not happy with his answer to ask another electrician. Not very useful for the customer!

Then contact them and tell them a REC completed restricted works in your home and didn't certify the works. They should then send the local inspector out and if deemed restricted works he will contact the REC and request he completes the work.

Risteard81 wrote:

Certainly you could ask RECI, although it must be remembered that RECI's opinion is also an opinion, as would be the CRU's (the new name for the CER).

When dealing with a REC RECI have more than an opinion as they have there own disciplinary procedures where they can remove a REC from being registered. The CRU can prosecute if in their opinion the rules haven't been followed then I guess it's down to the judges opinion.

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

What qualifies you (or others such as 2011) to always pronounce infallible statements of doctrine on here?

What qualifies me? My ability to use a phone.
I rang a very helpful RECI inspector that was recommended by CER to answer queries raised on this site in relation to restricted works. This inspector confirmed that work must be certified without question.

Risteard81

So you still believe that you are infallible. Usually you delete posts which differ from your own opinion.

Stoner

Risteard81 wrote:

So you still believe that you are infallible. Usually you delete posts which differ from your own opinion.

Mod Note.

Ristard81 if your posts are being deleted please report it. I'll handle the other mods.

If you have had posts deleted that contradict the charter then that's expected. In that case it's not an opinion that differs from a users it's one that differs from the charter.

Again I don't know what the content of the posts are that have allegedly been removed, but I will address it fairly.
If it's a case of a differing opinion and a mod abusing permissions I'll address it as I have done before by escalating it to whatever level is needed to prevent it from happening as best I can. I've done this before and I'll do it again.

However if you are posting content that's against the charter, shilling, trolling, being unhelpful, abusive or advertising etc it's to be expected that the post is deleted and possibly further steps taken.

Either way please either report the activity or follow the charter when posting. Again I'm unaware of the content and have no position on it until further information is supplied via pm or the report function. In these cases 2011 may have acted as a user, but of it's mod action then please don't discuss it here in the forum take actions like reporting it, disputes resolution, PM etc.

Thank you very much.

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

So you still believe that you are infallible. Usually you delete posts which differ from your own opinion.

Please back this accusation up in the manner that Stoner suggests.

metricspaces

2011 wrote: »

Although as can be seen choose your REC carefully as the quality of work can be disappointing.

Could you explain why you feel the quality of the work you see in the photo is disappointing?

Stoner

Lads, I'm going to close this thread now, I think it's addressed the ops issue as much as it can and there's not much to be gained bringing it any further.