I know like for like replacement is classed as maintenance and a MEIWC isn't required.

I'd go back and check that if I were you - most folk will disagree ;-)

The whole point of the MWC is that relatively little testing needs to be done but not none at all and it is intended to cover the 'like for like' repairs.

Even as part of a true like for like, say a new but identical light switch to replace one smashed by careless furniture removal, if you find something that would be a showstopper on an EICR, such as the example of no earth for a metal bodied fitting, then your minor works is incomplete, and just got slightly bigger. Either lock it off dead or fix it properly.

You may decide that the scope of tests  can be trimmed to no more than a quick flash with the Zs meter or an general meter on  ohms check a continuity to something else known to be earthed, and a then a L-N polarity check, but in anything more than DIY in your own home, there probably should be at least some tests like that. Similarly as a bare bones minimum  the 3 lights plug in socket tester should probably be brought out after a socket swap - it is possible to get the polarity wrong or the CPC clamped on the insulation.

Mike. 

PART 5: Declaration
I certify that the work covered by this certificate does not impair the safety of the existing installation and the work has been designed, constructed, inspected and tested in accordance with BS 7671:2018 (IET Wiring Regulations) amended to ............... (date) and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, at the time of my inspection, complied with BS 7671 except as detailed in Part 1 above.

"like for like! is a folklore term with no meaning in our regs and rules

There’s a short essay in Part 1 of some of my Minor Works Certificates and some of Part 5 gets underlined:

PART 5: Declaration
I certify that the work covered by this certificate does not impair the safety of the existing installation and the work has been designed, constructed, inspected and tested in accordance with BS 7671:2018 (IET Wiring Regulations) amended to ............... (date) and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, at the time of my inspection, complied with BS 7671 except as detailed in Part 1 above.

Well, I mean disconnect the circuit worked on and bonding for testing. Completing a MEIWC for a like for like change would mean that you couldn't complete the work if there was no bonding or RCD protection (if applicable) unless upgrading. "Yes I can change the pendant for £300 as you need bonding and RCD protection". That would be classing a like for like replacement as an alteration to the circuit that needs to comply with the latest version of the regs. Or do you just do the testing on the MEIWC and state that bonding and RCD isn't required as it is like for like? I have been just testing Zs for like for like and writing that on the invoice.

Jimi 

You do a like for like replacement of a broken ceiling rose and pendant set, the installation is just as safe as it was before, you have not impaired the safety of the existing installation.

You then use part 1 to advise the customer of any non-compliance with the current edition of BS7671 such as no RCD protection on a thirty-year-old lighting circuit that is otherwise still fit for purpose.

But installing a new socket outlet to an existing circuit without RCD protection is not acceptable and I would deeply question someone doing a like for like replacement of an electric shower without RCD protection, but it happens.

I have wasted a lot of time with potential customers in the past who have refused a consumer unit upgrade when wanting additional circuits and alterations made to their electrical installations because they are having a new kitchen installed or similar work.

I have learnt to be blunt and walk away, the absolute classic was the guy who was spending thousands of pounds having his garden landscaped and wanted lighting and power including in and around a huge pond and water feature.

He had a Wylex BS3036 fuse board in the external meter cabinet without any RCD protection and with the shower circuit dogged into the incoming terminals of the main switch, so the shower circuit was not isolated by the installation main switch and was only protected by the DNO main fuse.

I said he needed a new consumer unit, he said he didn't want to pay for one and I left.

What's not so easy is if initially things look okay, then turn out to be very nasty when you start taking them apart, such as finding out parts of a lighting circuit are not fit for purpose after you have started work.

Yeah I'd always ensure full compliance with any addition or a new circuit. Just trying to get clarification on like for like. NICEIC technical seems to think minor works isn't necessary. 

I probably write out more Minor works Certificates than any other electrician using this forum.

It takes a couple of minutes to write out an MWC but sets you apart from the bloke down the pub, I get a lot of work because I give customers an MWC, it also rectum protectum to quote another forum user as you are covering yourself by writing all the obvious non-compliances with the current edition of the Wiring Regulations in Part 1 and telling the customer what they are.

Needless to say, the box in Part 1 on the model form is too small.

Needless to say, the box in Part 1 on the model form is too small.

" see attached small booklet of non-compliances." perhaps

There is a grey area though - it may have inadequate looking bonding and yet the Zs checks out OK,  it may well not have an RCD, there may be quite a lot of things that would be C3 or the old FI on an EICR, but that does not always have to stop the job.

But you probably ought to note it, and your professional opinion that it will need improving, so that later no-one can say  'you said it was all OK when you changed the light fitting '  - you are only saying your new work is not making it worse,  you are not adopting or approving the stuff that  is already there, and is not yours. That needs to be made crystal clear to all involved.

The time you may not bother is if records of who did what and lines of responsibility are organized another way - that may be the case if you are working on a large site with a traditional works services dept, clerk of works, master drawings etc, but only if that department has its own records in order, and a proper process for flagging up any problem encountered mid-job.

Mike.

.