Evading EWOFs

Post Reply
JamieP
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:08 am
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Evading EWOFs

Post by JamieP »

I have been supplied a bunch of buildings that are essentially transportable installation. However the buildings have shown up with a mains entry box. I believe they are changing them from a plug in connection to get around the technicality of being a trainsportable by making them direct connected.

By them asking me to connect I am essentially having to take responsibility for them as I either have to sight or issue a CoC? Correct?

They all have a sticker, not an EWoF, that says this building has a current CoC and then has a three year date. This made no sense to me so I asked for copies thinking if I could sight a CoC issued within 6 months I could push responsibility back on them. They got back to me but all they provided was an ESC for each.

My other issue is some of them are old and literally don't comply with current rules so any CoC issued would be incorrect. Some of the old ones note compliance with 1997 Regs and some ECPs.

I don't believe this is enough to cover me, curious on your thoughts? I believe they are trying to save themselves money, cheat compliance and push liability onto the connecting electrician.
AlecK
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 262 times

Re: Evading EWOFs

Post by AlecK »

Anything that gets directly connected becomes part of the installation it's connected to.
So yes an ESC is required, each time they get connected.
And yes, the person connecting is responsible for them being "safe to connect " [ESR 73A]

Also true that a CoC that is less than 6 months old can be relied on in this regard

I believe they also require a CoC for each time they are connected
Prior to being connected, they are essentially just a collection of fittings.
Not being tied to a piece of land ("property"), they can't be considered to be an electrical installation as defined in the Act. Nor a part-installation.
Remember that the key piece of info that identifies an installation is the location.
Different location = different installation.

So while they may have complied with requirements at time of first construction; each time are connected they must comply with the current requirements.

No different from re-using a construction site switchboard; or any other collection of fittings.
JamieP
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:08 am
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Evading EWOFs

Post by JamieP »

So in terms of compliance, to put responsibility off me and back to them, either need a EWoF if classed as a transportable but if not transportable they need to supply me with a CoC being part of the installation?
AlecK
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 262 times

Re: Evading EWOFs

Post by AlecK »

If being treated as a "connectable installation"; must have a current WoEF before being connected to supply [ESR 76].
And that connection is by plugging in ("detachable connection"), not by direct connection
Just being designed to be transportable isn't enough by itself.
Not only does ESR 60 require CIs to comply with relevant Standard; but they can only get a WoEF of they have provision for being plugged in.


If owner takes the other option, where the units are directly connected; then each time they get connected to supply they are being added to an existing installation.
Which means that the alteration to the installation is PEW on that installation
Which must be certified.


Responsibility lies with whoever connects.
While the person connecting can rely on a CoC that's less than 6 months old ;
there's no requirement that one be provided to you as person connecting.
These users thanked the author AlecK for the post:
JamieP (Fri May 06, 2022 11:38 am)
Rating: 16.67%
Post Reply