Could you post a picture of the certificate that was issued?

Does whatever form they provide fully describe what work was done and what circuits were affected ?
Is the level of testing done adequate to cover the work. so we can be sure its safe, or at least as safe as what it replaces ?

If further calcs are required e.g. cable ratings - if for example breaker rating increased  - is enough  info provided ?

If yes, obligations are met.  The fact that it is all presented on one 'standard form' or 'model form' or another may be a convenience, but unless contractually stipulated not a requirement.

Mike

Unfortunately not, but it was the same as the BS7671 model form. It was correctly filled in, but the Q was raised, should it have been an EIC?

The change was in accordance with an approved design. The only question is, really, Because the circuit protective device has changed, is an MWC the appropriate certificate, or should it have been an EIC? 

We have had quite a discussion about it on site with varying opinions and viewpoints, and one of the chaps has talked about should there be a fault/accident/incident occur sometime in the future and the paperwork be thoroughly examined, will the fact that its an MWC be found to be inadequate? Below is a quote from 7671 Page 514, and the thought is, does the circuit breaker come under 'similar items' ?

The Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate is intended to be used for additions and alterations to an installation that do not extend to the provision of a new circuit. Examples include the addition of socket-outlets or lighting points to an existing circuit, the relocation of a light switch etc. This Certificate may also be used for the replacement of equipment such as accessories or luminaires, but not for the replacement of distribution boards or similar items. Appropriate inspection and testing, however, should always be carried out irrespective of the extent of the work undertaken.

Another intersting point from

BS 7671:2018+A2:2022
MODEL FORMS FOR CERTIFICATION AND REPORTING

is

From the sections above I read this as the person/company doing the work could be more liable in a court of law should something happen.  It is also worth mentioning that when you request work you could ask for the EIC to be issued and not a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate (MEIWC).   Personally I think that an EIC should be issued. 

All looks good, but because the circuit protective device is not strictly a like for like change, should they have actually provided an EIC?

The suitability of a protective device can be undermined by other changes - e.g. lengthening a circuit (so increasing Zs) or selection of conductor c.s.a for an addition - things that should be adequately covered by an MWC.  Changing the details of the protective device while keeping the circuit length/conductors the same doesn't really raise any different issues.

The details of the design, inspection and testing should be the same whatever shape piece of paper it's recorded on, so as long as all the necessary details were there, I'd be happy with an MWC or EIC or even something bespoke made up to suit the particular situation. The ones in BS 7671 are only examples (models) after all.

  - Andy.

Like, others, I do not think that the exact paperwork matters, but why was the rating of the breaker changed please?

This begs a further question - is there any difference between replacing an MCB, like for like, as opposed to changing for a different rating?

- is there any difference between replacing an MCB, like for like, as opposed to changing for a different rating?

- in terms of the process to follow or the work done, no. In terms of the tests needed, no.

In terms of if the design calcs for the circuit needing to be redone, maybe, and in turn that may affect the test limits.

So, again, is the information given adequate and appropriate ?

The type of form  is irrelevant   that could be a house special, unless defined by contract.

Mike.

Worth considering if they changed a MCB to a RCBO (preferably Dual pole)

58w fluorescent luminaires changed to 12W versions

Inrush current of LED may require the use of a C curve breaker rather than a B

B30 changed to a B20 or B16

Yes, that was not quite what I meant. I wondered whether it made any difference to the paperwork. MEIWC (page 513 of the BBB): "Part 1 3. Description of the minor works ....." Insert something like, "Fluorescent luminaires changed to LED. Overcurrent protective device changed." The value(s) of the new device will be specified in Part 3.