A few years ago I was sub contracting to a council where I was wiring up wet rooms for the disabled...one job I went to had a 6mm t+e feeding an 8.5kw,with the run to the shower under the floor straight up the wall and the run was no more than 5metres,which I thought was more than sufficient. db1 had no rcd protection but db2 did,the shower was fed by 10mm tails with a 16amp mcb for a stairlift and a 32amp mcb for the shower...the shower was changed like for like after tiling.no installation work required,no alterations.easy peasy.however today my employer had a phone call accusing us of poor workmanship from the council.i did not issue a cert for the works,possibly should have issued a minor works cert but some days it can do 20 jobs and surely nobody rights a minor works for changing light switches,sockets etc?unless in rougher than I think....but however there is a joint in the shower cable enclosed in db1.some pig had extended the 6mm using 50amp connector blocks and the neutral was loose causing arching and tripping the Rcd in db2...I thought I had no reason to go anywhere near db1?they have sent pictures to my boss and worried I'm going to be hung out to dry as I've had nothing like this in my 8 years as a spark.am I being OTT and the council are scaring me or have they got a case?
I'm not 100% sure what you mean but if all you did was replace the shower then you wouldn't issue a MWC anyway as it's not under 7671 though I would take a live Zs to ensure it's within tolerence. If the install method was clipped direct then 6mm = 47a so that's ok. If some muppet then did some further work then what's it to do with you?
How is it not? A like-for-like replacement does not require a certificate, although one can be issued. If the council required it for all accessory replacements etc. done (they may well do) then it should have been issued.
H i am worried that the connector blocks were already in place though as they are accusing me of extending the shower cable to reach the db2
Can we get with program please? He said "a few years ago"...if the council wanted it I think they could have asked a bit sooner! Anyway IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH BS7671.
AS far as you recall, given the time that has passed, you did all the usual checks (Zs, RCD) and nothing lead you to believe that there might be any problem with the supply to the fitting you were sent to replace.
They would have done. It would have been clearly stipulated in the contract. Of that I have no doubt. Absolutely untrue. Certification isn't required by BS7671 but it is permitted by it. And the work still must be carried out in accordance with BS7671.
Are you for real? A shower change needs to "comply" with 7671? AND it needs a MWC? Next time you change a light bulb in a kitchen don't forget to notify building control.
Personally if the circuit has been altered (disconnected and then reconnected) I think good practice would be to issue a MWC. As to the op. It was years ago. Don't worry.
You check the circuit for compliance with 7671 if a light bulb blows? Really? If you replace your washing machine you check for compliance with 7671? Really? etc...
To be fare we are talking about disconnecting and reconnection a part of the fixed wiring not removing and replacing a plug in appliance or lamp.
nffc is a shower not just a appliance like any other (like a cooker) connected to a final circuit via an isolator. Changing the appliance does not really require a MWC, or does it? I can see why a MWC could be issued as it records the work done and the results of any tests.