In this recent installation on a dairy farm, the electrical contractor left isolators for connection of motors and control equipment by a specialist milking parlour contractor. The photo shows only a small part of a fairly extensive system. An EIC was required as part of an application for a sizeable government grant. The electrical contractor duly provided this but only up to the isolation points. Not one stick of certification was provided for the installation on the other side of same. 
Seems to be a very common situation throughout all types of industrial installations. 

In this recent installation on a dairy farm, the electrical contractor left isolators for connection of motors and control equipment by a specialist milking parlour contractor. The photo shows only a small part of a fairly extensive system. An EIC was required as part of an application for a sizeable government grant. The electrical contractor duly provided this but only up to the isolation points. Not one stick of certification was provided for the installation on the other side of same. 
Seems to be a very common situation throughout all types of industrial installations. 

Not one stick of certification was provided for the installation on the other side

It's not just in commercial/industrial situations - typically the same happens in domestics for central heating systems (which getting far more extensive these days with per-room zoning etc) - it seems to fall under the heading of "too hard" for the typical electrician and "dunno about electrical testing" for the plumber.

  - Andy.

lyledunn said:

The electrical contractor duly provided this but only up to the isolation points. Not one stick of certification was provided for the installation on the other side of same. 

For an EIC to BS 7671 I think  that is correct.

However, there ought to be evidence, as required by BS EN IEC 60204-1, for installation and commissioning tests of the machinery according to manufacturer's instructions. This may include tests for the protective bonding circuit, and insulation resistance, on-site.

It's the duty holder's responsibility to make sure the machinery installer provides this.

Neither of the above removes the requirements under PUWER and EAWR for the duty holder to ensure adequate provision during installation, and, maintenance to prevent danger. This would, I think we'd all agree, and certainly supported by industry standards and guidance, include suitable electrical tests for at least continuity of protective conductors ("protective bonding circuit" according to some standards) and some form of insulation resistance test, as well as a thorough inspection.

As we have seen in recent cases, in the UK, if anything goes wrong and sadly someone receives an electric shock, particularly if it's fatal, the relevant public prosecuting authority, supported by HSE/HSE(NI), would have little hesitation in prosecuting any and all concerned where deficiencies are evidenced (initial installer of the Machinery, the manufacturer of the Machinery, the company responsible for the premises in which the Machinery is installed, and maintainers of the Machinery).

Absence of records such as lyledunn  has provided examples of, would be seen as grounds for suspicion of one or more (criminal) safety offences, particularly if an Expert could pinpoint deficiencies that testing could have highlighted, and thus been rectified preventing the incident.