IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: MEIWC
Topic Summary: measuring Zs - "what do you do"
Created On: 13 November 2012 11:31 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 13 November 2012 11:31 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



psychicwarrior

Posts: 271
Joined: 18 October 2010

hmmmph - more general 'chit chat' than a mean technical question so apologies if in wrong forum with this one.

after talking about a job a few days ago, I wondered how many electricians go around hunting for the furthest point on a lighting circuit when issuing a MEIWC - if they issue them at all.

e.g. extensive lighting circuit in an old building with many rooms and very high ceilings, many utilisation points etc.

simple change of broken lighting accessory and a new switch i think was included.

i keep getting told by some peers 'its not worth bothering issuing an meiwc unless asked...'

"what do you do" ?
 13 November 2012 11:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11768
Joined: 13 August 2003

Rightly or wrongly, in general, I measure/record max Zs on the addition/alteration - after all I'm certifying just the new work, not the entire circuit.

A quick check on the original make sure that the changes haven't upset it - e.g. a quick Zs on any handy point downstream of my connection - that value doesn't get recorded though.

Only exception to that is where the alteration inserts additional resistance (cable) into the original circuit - e.g. extending a ring (rather than adding spurs) or extending/re-routing the supply end of an existing circuit (e.g. for a wall move) - then I need to satisfy myself that I've not increased the original Zs beyond limits. I'd hunt out furthest point on the existing then. (For a simple ring you could tell from (r1+r2)/4 etc, but that doesn't take into account spurs, so probably hunt then too). Less of a worry if it's RCD protected of course.

- Andy.
 13 November 2012 12:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



aligarjon

Posts: 2921
Joined: 09 September 2005

Originally posted by: psychicwarrior

hmmmph - more general 'chit chat' than a mean technical question so apologies if in wrong forum with this one.



after talking about a job a few days ago, I wondered how many electricians go around hunting for the furthest point on a lighting circuit when issuing a MEIWC - if they issue them at all.



e.g. extensive lighting circuit in an old building with many rooms and very high ceilings, many utilisation points etc.



simple change of broken lighting accessory and a new switch i think was included.



i keep getting told by some peers 'its not worth bothering issuing an meiwc unless asked...'



"what do you do" ?





If a certificate is asked for i do as Andy indicated, test at the light i have changed. Maintenance work doesn't usually require a certificate.


Gary

-------------------------
Specialised Subject. The Bleedin Obvious. John Cleese
 13 November 2012 06:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for dickllewellyn.
dickllewellyn

Posts: 1222
Joined: 19 March 2010

Originally posted by: aligarjon



If a certificate is asked for i do as Andy indicated, test at the light i have changed. Maintenance work doesn't usually require a certificate.





Gary


Really?!

I can feel you about a plumber who lost a court case to the tune of £90k simply by not issuing a minor works cert when changing an immersion heater after it was deemed a fire started there. Now the certificate may not have proved anything at all in relation to the fire, but it does prove diligence. If a court or insurance company can show you are cutting corners by not providing certification, where else might you be cutting corners?!

Think carefully about issuing a certificate next time!

-------------------------
Regards
Richard (Dick)

"Insert words of wisdom and/or witty pun here"
 13 November 2012 06:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6377
Joined: 04 July 2007

Not issuing a mwc for a replacement isn't "cutting corners" Dick, it's just not required! (although I often do issue them when technically not necessary, usually for showers or other bathroom stuff)

Dave.
 13 November 2012 07:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for kj scott.
kj scott

Posts: 2144
Joined: 02 April 2006

A record of the work is necessary as is the need to record relavent testing. The MEIW certificate is the most convenient standard document; unless you have your own format to record the information.

-------------------------
http://www.niceic.biz
 13 November 2012 08:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mikejumper

Posts: 1824
Joined: 14 December 2006

Originally posted by: kj scott
A record of the work is necessary as is the need to record relavent testing. The MEIW certificate is the most convenient standard document; unless you have your own format to record the information.

A notebook does me.
As I fill them up they get filed away for future reference.
MWC when required.
 13 November 2012 08:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



weirdbeard

Posts: 1652
Joined: 26 September 2011

Originally posted by: dickllewellyn



I can feel you about a plumber who lost a court case to the tune of £90k simply by not issuing a minor works cert when changing an immersion heater after it was deemed a fire started there. Now the certificate may not have proved anything at all in relation to the fire, but it does prove diligence. If a court or insurance company can show you are cutting corners by not providing certification, where else might you be cutting corners?!



Think carefully about issuing a certificate next time!


Hi Dick, I must say it doesn't sound like a bit of paper would have helped the plumber one jot - if it was proved that the fire was the fault of his/her electrical connections it would surely also be proved that if a MWC was issued it was obviously a false declaration, and may have led to a harsher punishment!!?
 13 November 2012 09:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



antric2

Posts: 1087
Joined: 20 October 2006

.Now the certificate may not have proved anything at all in relation to the fire, but it does prove diligence. If a court or insurance company can show you are cutting corners by not providing certification, where else might you be cutting corners?!



Think carefully about issuing a certificate next time!


I agree entirely with what Dick says on his post above.
Our business is about doing the job with accountabillity and professionalism.
In these days of blame culture.as I say to some customers who 'are not bothered about a cert' thinking job might be cheaper, that cert is for me and I will give you a copy of my cert because it coveres my backside.....albeit it really is only valid the moment it is written but it can be produced to say I have followed procedure and as far as reasonably practicable I had done the job satisfactorily and safely....your honour!
Also as correctly stated, maintenance jobs\like for like replacements dont always require certification,but what harm is there in providing aMWC as hopefully,the checks are done anyway.
But it really is a personal call what you do.
Regards
antric
 13 November 2012 10:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for slittle.
slittle

Posts: 3596
Joined: 22 November 2007

We've always followed the logic of:-

If you do it test it,
If you test it, record it
If you record it, certify it.

If you don't want to, then don't do it.

It's always going to be a paper chase these days and if you've got some at least you stand half a chance of being defended.

Stu
 14 November 2012 12:07 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



antric2

Posts: 1087
Joined: 20 October 2006

Originally posted by: slittle

We've always followed the logic of:-



If you do it test it,

If you test it, record it

If you record it, certify it.



If you don't want to, then don't do it.



It's always going to be a paper chase these days and if you've got some at least you stand half a chance of being defended.



Stu


Yes,exactly!
 14 November 2012 11:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Delbot321

Posts: 77
Joined: 06 November 2012

In my opinion you should always issue a certificate for the work you do. In that way you clearly responsibility for what you did and more importantly what you didn't do.

Many years ago I did a bulk lamp change through a large office building. I did a minor works certificate so that there was a declaration that I hadn't changed any of the circuits or tested them. I also put a warning that most of the terminal blocks were brittle due to years of heat having cooked them. 6 months later my boss called me in to say he had had a 'complaint' that we had not done a very good job on connecting them and that the cables were falling out and so on and the client wanted us to go back and sort it all at our expense. I explained we were only contracted to change the lamps and they had been warned about the connections etc. He got my copy of the issued certificate and provided a copy to the client as evidence of what we had done, not done, and that we had met our professional duty of care in advising them of the poor connections.

I now do the job of a qualifying manager signing reports, certificates and the likes off. For the sake of 5 minutes to complete a form can save you so much grief later.
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.