Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 57 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 4538 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

17th edition design given 18th edition certifcate

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Hello, I recently purchased a new build home on a small development; a rather unique situation has occurred that I thought was interesting and might interest some people here to discuss. It's still currently unresolved but progress is being made.


The house has a NICEIC BS 7671: 2018 domestic electrical installation certificate dated 5/2/20 with no departures identified; with the only comment being no water bond due to plastic pipework. I noticed that no SPD had been fitted so asked the contractor for the completed risk assessment to determine that it was not needed. Initially they did not know what I was on about and then said that no SPD was fitted due to the initial design being done in December 2018 to the 17th edition. So far so good!


However on the electrical designs I have there was a revision on 27/5/2019 and at my request I later paid for an additional £1700 of fixed LED lighting to be installed throughout on 20/11/2019. After bringing this up I was told it was still to the 17th and that "any subsequent revisions are based on the regulations in force at the time of the original design". The installation certificate includes these lighting changes as many more (20+) positions are served on the circuits, everything else seems to be as the 27/5/2019 revision design.


I then asked why a 18th edition certificate had been issued with no note of that the installation is actually to 17th design and standard and was told that they had used up all their 17th edition certificates during the grace period, that the NICEIC had advised them to use 18th edition certificates but place "n/a" on items pertaining to SPDs and that their response is to amend the existing certificate to note that the installation was carried out to the 17th edition regulations.


I can forgive that yes, even a brand new home can be delivered not to the latest regulation due to a design from a grace period (as always regulations can be updated quicker than projects) but I do not get a good feeling from the 18th edition certificate being issued on a 17th edition design and installation without any indication - certainly the other homeowners on the development may not be as keen on protecting their extra gizmos as I am!



 


Parents
  • 0

    Sparkingchip: 
    If the contractor paid to use online certificate software to produce the certificates I doubt there was an option to “back date” the installation by using 17th edition forms, they would have to use 18th forms and amend as required.

    Filling in the SPD box as “N/A” may be acceptable if the design date is noted or if the SPD is not actually required.

    As I said above if the only reason a SPD is required is because of the additional work ordered by the customer then the cost of supplying and installing the SPD should have been added onto the cost of the extra work as a chargeable item.

    I agree with this being the answer.

    The manufacturer of the LED lights may have recommended SPDs are used, and the requirement to install taking into account manufacturer's instructions is a fundamental requirement of 17th Edition as well as 18th Edition.

    If that is the case, it should have been taken into account in the cost of the variation, although if this were costed and itemised for approval, without SPD being listed, it could be argued it was known at the time no SPD would be fitted (depending on the ceraunic level in the area … 17th Ed did include an assessment as a criteria for installing SPDs but it was different to 18th Edition).

Reply
  • 0

    Sparkingchip: 
    If the contractor paid to use online certificate software to produce the certificates I doubt there was an option to “back date” the installation by using 17th edition forms, they would have to use 18th forms and amend as required.

    Filling in the SPD box as “N/A” may be acceptable if the design date is noted or if the SPD is not actually required.

    As I said above if the only reason a SPD is required is because of the additional work ordered by the customer then the cost of supplying and installing the SPD should have been added onto the cost of the extra work as a chargeable item.

    I agree with this being the answer.

    The manufacturer of the LED lights may have recommended SPDs are used, and the requirement to install taking into account manufacturer's instructions is a fundamental requirement of 17th Edition as well as 18th Edition.

    If that is the case, it should have been taken into account in the cost of the variation, although if this were costed and itemised for approval, without SPD being listed, it could be argued it was known at the time no SPD would be fitted (depending on the ceraunic level in the area … 17th Ed did include an assessment as a criteria for installing SPDs but it was different to 18th Edition).

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines