Requirements for an electrical design & the EIC

Since a "certificate" is a statement of truth (when you sign it, you are vouching for the veracity of the statements made), it would not be correct for someone to sign for something they didn't do. In fact, if anything were to go wrong (civil claim, or someone is hurt and there's a criminal case) it could go badly in court for someone making a false certification statement.

If the installation contains solar PV or battery storage, or other forms of generation, it is a legal requirement to apply BS 7671. If you have an agreement or contract that specified BS 7671, then BS 7671 is a requirement for the works.

BS 7671 requires someone to take responsibility for the design, and sign the certificate, so if this is not done, it can be argued that verification of the installation does not fully conform to BS 7671, so, if BS 7671 is a requirement, there's possibly room for a claim.

If one of the respondents signing the certificate is registered with a Competent Person Certification Scheme, like ECA, NICEIC or NAPIT, it might be worth asking their helpline for advice. This especially important if the works is notifiable under Part P of the Building Regulations, where I guess you'd want to check the work has been properly registered. I'm sure there are other cases where similar things happen, and the registration schemes probably have recommended way of dealing with it.

I suppose that another way of putting the question is whether an EIC which is not signed by the designer (but has been signed by the constructor, and inspector and tester) is valid.

I can certainly see a practical problem, especially is there is a long interval between design and completion of the work. Can you get the designer to come back and sign? Alternatively, should the EIC be started when the design is drawn up and then retained until the work is complete?

I can see no legal reason why the MC should not sign, but he is then assuming responsibility for the SC's work. This does not seem very different from, say, a head of department signing for subordinates' work.

What do the major construction companies do?

should the EIC be started when the design is drawn up and then retained until the work is complete?

That makes sense to me - the EIC would be passed onto the installer and then the inspector along with the design itself.

   - Andy.

Chris Pearson said:

I suppose that another way of putting the question is whether an EIC which is not signed by the designer (but has been signed by the constructor, and inspector and tester) is valid.

Regulation 644.4 implies it would not be valid for full conformity ...

644.4 The person or persons responsible for the design, construction and verification of the installation shall issue the Certificate, which takes account of their respective responsibilities, to the person ordering the work, together with the records mentioned in Regulation 644.3.

The recommendation for the interval between initial verification and the first periodic inspection shall be recorded on the Certificate.

I guess in reality, the certificate would be vaild for the installation and verification (inspection & testing) ... there would be no statement of conformity for the design ... if the Designer were engaged to provide a BS 7671-conformant design, then surely the obligation of the Designer would be to complete their statement on the certificate accordingly? 

So, perhaps in this case, the main contractor should follow up with the Designer?

A sticking point, though, is that the designer might not have been engaged to completion of the work to make sure that their design is what has been "built" on-site. 

regulation 644.4 that includes the phrase: "which takes account of their respective responsibilities"

When read in context of the rest of the regulation 644, this section leads me to conclude our certificates are appropriate and valid without a "Design" signature.

This works with the wording in the 'CLIENT' standard which only requires us to provide certification for completion and inspection.

Most of the other reference material refers to is in an Appendix 6, which is "informative", not a regulation.

Heera said:

When read in context of the rest of the regulation 644, this section leads me to conclude our certificates are appropriate and valid without a "Design" signature.

But there is still no statement from the person who did the design, so yes I agree your cert covers what you did, BUT that doesn't mean all of the certification required by 644.4 is available, i.e. nothing from the designer - hence the client could still claim the work is not complete according to the standard?

Sooo...

Who actually does the design calcs etc, and is the result really so bad he or she does not wish to admit it it?

regards Mike 

(who occasionally signs for more than one section on similar looking forms....)

The question is it a requirement for the principal designer to have it signed? The standard doesn't require us to sign, only as per the respective responsibility? 

Principal 'CONTRACTORS' have appointed sub-contractors for the installation of new DB, that then became an as fitted design, in which the principal contractors did the design. Now a new subcontractor comes a long a installs a new circuit on that DB, in which another as fitted design has to be done. And in accordance with the client standards the principal contractor only had responsibility for completion and inspection which has been complete. Therefore is a signature required by the principal contractor under the design section, if the client has or has not asked for it?

Yes, but not a lot you can do about it. Assuming that you were the installer, provided that you followed the design, you have nothing to worry about.