Landlord doing own non-notifiable work

Risteard said:
Spark123 said:
Replacing an accessory that is broken (without the inclusion of additional wiring/circuits/new CUs) is just maintenance work, if you had to just replace a light switch would you issue a MWC?
OK, if the owner demanded it you could but I don't see the benefit or any reason to mandate it.
Click to expand...
It is not required for a like-for-like replacement of an accessory. It may be prudent, but would not be required.

However we have no reason to believe that this was replacement of a faulty accessory rather than alteration of or addition to the electrical installation.
Click to expand...

The OP says: "The timer on the immersion heater...has become faulty. I need to do a like for like replacement. 10 minute job"

It's a "like for like" replacement of a time switch. It might even be one of those time switches that comes on a pre-wired base into which the timer simply plugs in.
 
Is the ubiquitous (and extremely irritating) like-for-like mentioned in the regulations?

Does the object have to be entirely identical to the previous or is it just a replacement?
 
EFLImpudence said:
Is the ubiquitous (and extremely irritating) like-for-like mentioned in the regulations? Does the object have to be entirely identical to the previous or is it just a replacement?
Click to expand...
I agree. Given the short availability-life of many products, it would clearly be silly to single out 'entirely identical' for special consideration. However, as we've seen in the past, people have been known to try to stretch 'replacement' to an extent which many would probably not regard as particularly 'reasonable!

Kind Regards, John
 
There is a definition for maintenance in the regs.
IMO replacing something that is broken such as a timer, switch, lamp where there isn't any change to the circuit or protective measures is maintenance work.
 
Last edited:
As with like for like, it - maintenance - seems to be an often quoted statement that is accepted as fact merely because it is so often quoted but, in reality, has no basis.

Spark123 said:
There is a definition for maintenance in the regs.
Click to expand...
If you mean in Part 2 definitions, I would say that that means repair of a part and does not include replacements.
Given that all work in a house could be regarded as maintenance of the whole, then is there no need for any testing or record keeping?

IMO replacing something that is broken such as a timer, switch, lamp where there isn't any change to the circuit or protective measures is maintenance work.
Click to expand...
Ok, if that's what you think.


Anyway, even if that is the case, do I take it that, when replacing an immersion timer, you would do no checks or tests of the circuit; not even a quick Zs check?
 
Yes, I would to satisfy myself it is ok, especially as I would need to interfere with the cpc to replace the timer.
 
Spark123 said:
Yes, I would to satisfy myself it is ok, especially as I would need to interfere with the cpc to replace the timer.
Click to expand...
So how does 'what you would do' differ when you consider the job to be 'maintenance' as compared with when you consider it as something else?

Kind Regards, John
 
Spark123 said:
I wouldn't bother issuing a MWC for it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - but if you're going to go to the trouble of undertaking "test(s)", I would personally feel that you might as well document the results in some formal fashion - if not only in case someone subsequently questioned whether you had undertaken the tests(s) and got satisfactory result(s).

Kind Regards, John
 
Perhaps then, John, a person who had cause to do a lot of simple replacement of accessory jobs and wanting to issue some documentation to the client, who found a MWC over the top (and burdensome for the number of times he did it). Might come up with his own form where he states a description of the work done and the address, a place to record the loop result, tick boxes for polarity and correct over current protection confirmed and a place to sign and date it...

For a one off you might as well just do a MWC though
 
Adam_151 said:
Perhaps then, John, a person who had cause to do a lot of simple replacement of accessory jobs and wanting to issue some documentation to the client, who found a MWC over the top (and burdensome for the number of times he did it). Might come up with his own form where he states a description of the work done and the address, a place to record the loop result, tick boxes for polarity and correct over current protection confirmed and a place to sign and date it...
Click to expand...
Sure - all I said was that I thought it would be sensible to formally document the work and test results. As far as I am concerned, that could be on one's own form - but what you describe sounds remarkably like a MWC, so I'm not convinced that much would be gained by going to the trouble of essentially re-inventing that wheel!

Kind Regards, John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top