Just wired a farm workshop and ran 5-core 2.5 tps (3 live + N +E) to each of three outlets. MCBs on board are 3 x 20A.
Outlets are all PDL 56 series and at each point, is one SO520 socket for 3-phase plus one SO320 single-phase socket.
To load spread, the single phase outlets each used a different phase.
However, as it's a business, the client wanted a COC from an Inspector (their call and was happy with that request) but he declined stating that the single phase sockets needed their own feed from the board and could not 'share' the 3-phase feed.
Am I missing something here?
Same cable for 1 or 3 phase outlets
Re: Same cable for 1 or 3 phase outlets
What's missing is the actual rule the inspector thinks has been broken.
Running separate circuits for 3-phase and single-phase sockets may be usual practice, but there's nothing in Wiring Rules that requires it.
Time to find another Inspector; one who will check the work against actual requirements rather than his own preferences.
Running separate circuits for 3-phase and single-phase sockets may be usual practice, but there's nothing in Wiring Rules that requires it.
Time to find another Inspector; one who will check the work against actual requirements rather than his own preferences.
Re: Same cable for 1 or 3 phase outlets
Problem is that client employed the Inspector. May be easier to run separate feed and swallow my pride (it's a fixed quote job) rather than have the client think I'm a smartarse arguing with the I. But you've confirmed my suspicions AlecK, never heard of this new 'rule' and been doing this for years.
Re: Same cable for 1 or 3 phase outlets
You may well have to suck it up this time
Unusual for client to specify a 3rd-party sign-off by their nominated person; but as long as it's in the contract you're stuck with it
Hindsight suggests would have been wise to talk to this "Inspector" before quoting
But then hindsight is always 20 / 20
Unusual for client to specify a 3rd-party sign-off by their nominated person; but as long as it's in the contract you're stuck with it
Hindsight suggests would have been wise to talk to this "Inspector" before quoting
But then hindsight is always 20 / 20
Re: Same cable for 1 or 3 phase outlets
" the client wanted a COC from an Inspector" - the inspector can't issue a COC as they haven't carried out any of the work. They also can't issue an ROI as there isn't any high risk work to inspect. All they can do is provide a report to their client.
Your COC is the only document of importance here.
Personally, I would be informing the client that unless the inspector can state specifically which rule has been broken, them saying it's wrong is only an opinion - an incorrect opinion in this case.
Is it a quoted job? Is the client going to pay for the additional work required?
Your COC is the only document of importance here.
Personally, I would be informing the client that unless the inspector can state specifically which rule has been broken, them saying it's wrong is only an opinion - an incorrect opinion in this case.
Is it a quoted job? Is the client going to pay for the additional work required?
Re: Same cable for 1 or 3 phase outlets
The idea that a CoC can only be issued by someone who has done the work is simply wrong.
Probably started when CoCs were first introduced; my recollection is that officialdom called it 'self-certification" ;
and set up an expectation that PEW should be certified by a person doing (some of) the PEW being certified.
However right from 1993 Regs the only restriction on issuing CoCs has been that the issuer has to hold a PL that authorises certification of PEW.
There has never been any requirement for a certifier to be otherwise involved in the PEW.
It is therefore open to anyone wanting work done to stipulate, as part of the contract, that certification be done by a third party.
They can also specify which third party.
It becomes a condition of contract, and the work is then undertaken on that basis.
So the fact that this particular certifier is wrong about what is required by wiring rules isn't really relevant.
What could be relevant is whether the contract specified that certification be by 'an inspector' or by "this particular person".
If it was "this particular person", then choices are either persuade them they are wrong, or do it their way.
Similarly there is nothing in ESRs to prohibit inspecting, and issuing an RoI for, PEW that isn't high risk.
The RoI could be in any form, and issued by any person, as ESRs 70 - 73 would not apply.
Would be a strange thing to specify, but not illegal.
However seems that in this case the requirement wasn't "inspection by ..." , just "certification by ..."
The tricky bit when faced with an unusual condition in a contract is to work out the fish-hooks might be before getting too far into the process.
Probably started when CoCs were first introduced; my recollection is that officialdom called it 'self-certification" ;
and set up an expectation that PEW should be certified by a person doing (some of) the PEW being certified.
However right from 1993 Regs the only restriction on issuing CoCs has been that the issuer has to hold a PL that authorises certification of PEW.
There has never been any requirement for a certifier to be otherwise involved in the PEW.
It is therefore open to anyone wanting work done to stipulate, as part of the contract, that certification be done by a third party.
They can also specify which third party.
It becomes a condition of contract, and the work is then undertaken on that basis.
So the fact that this particular certifier is wrong about what is required by wiring rules isn't really relevant.
What could be relevant is whether the contract specified that certification be by 'an inspector' or by "this particular person".
If it was "this particular person", then choices are either persuade them they are wrong, or do it their way.
Similarly there is nothing in ESRs to prohibit inspecting, and issuing an RoI for, PEW that isn't high risk.
The RoI could be in any form, and issued by any person, as ESRs 70 - 73 would not apply.
Would be a strange thing to specify, but not illegal.
However seems that in this case the requirement wasn't "inspection by ..." , just "certification by ..."
The tricky bit when faced with an unusual condition in a contract is to work out the fish-hooks might be before getting too far into the process.
Re: Same cable for 1 or 3 phase outlets
Yes Alec, of course you're probably correct that all those things could happen because of the way the regulations are written - but it would be unusual to say the least.
And for example, if the person who actually did the work issued their COC stating that the work is compliant, then a second person who hasn't carried out any work won't issue a COC stating that the work isn't compliant, then it's going to get tricky - as seems to be the case.
Is the only way to get and answer about the different opinions to make a complaint to the EWRB? As we know, it's 50/50 at best that they will make the right interpretation and decision - even when presented with compelling facts from your good self.
And even if the second person would issue a COC, what would they issue it for? Only the parts that are visible, and whatever tests they carry out? They can't certify things they haven't seen.
IMO, I don't think they would actually be signing off a COC for all or part of the work - I think the owner just wanted them to say that all the work was compliant in their opinion.
And for example, if the person who actually did the work issued their COC stating that the work is compliant, then a second person who hasn't carried out any work won't issue a COC stating that the work isn't compliant, then it's going to get tricky - as seems to be the case.
Is the only way to get and answer about the different opinions to make a complaint to the EWRB? As we know, it's 50/50 at best that they will make the right interpretation and decision - even when presented with compelling facts from your good self.
And even if the second person would issue a COC, what would they issue it for? Only the parts that are visible, and whatever tests they carry out? They can't certify things they haven't seen.
IMO, I don't think they would actually be signing off a COC for all or part of the work - I think the owner just wanted them to say that all the work was compliant in their opinion.
Re: Same cable for 1 or 3 phase outlets
Agree it's tricky.
But there are two parallel systems in play for any job.
On one hand there's what ESRs say must happen, including certification processes.
On the other there's the basis of the contract (written or not).
The terms of contract are limited, to some degree, by the requirements of ESRs - ie you can't contract out of compliance with the law.
But there's nothing in relevant law (Act & ESRs) to prohibit a contractual requirement that the PEW be certified by a third party.
A CoC issued by the installer will satisfy the legal requirement set by ESR 65; but not the contractual requirement apparently set for this job.
Third-party certification is specifically required for PEW carried out under the 'homeowner" exemption.
And in fact this is the only case where ESRs specify who is responsible for issuing a mandated CoC.
ESR 65 simply requires that general & high risk PEW be certified.
No restrictions on who can do that; except that certification is itself PEW (as per Schedule 1).
Therefore any PEW (other than homeowner work) can be certified by anyone authorised to certify PEW.
And it happens routinely that the CoC for a job worked on by several licenced electrical workers is certified by just one
- who may or may not have done some of the physical work; and may never even have been on site.
Sure there are risks in doing this, because by issuing a CoC the issuer is accepting responsibility / liability for the work certified.
Perhaps unwise, but certainly not illegal.
Not only do ESRs conspicuously avoid stipulating who must certify PEW, they don't even make any person responsible for ensuring that it happens.
Same for inspection.
The only "driver' to make sure that certification and inspection actually do happen is in ESR 73A;
where the person about to connect has to sight - or issue - the relevant documents.
I don't think the idea of complaining to EWRB has any legs; because the person concerned (the "inspector") hasn't done any PEW.
If they had issued a CoC, they would have done some PEW - but then there would hardly be grounds for complaint.
As it is the argument appears to be entirely about fulfilling the terms of the contract, not about doing improper PEW
But there are two parallel systems in play for any job.
On one hand there's what ESRs say must happen, including certification processes.
On the other there's the basis of the contract (written or not).
The terms of contract are limited, to some degree, by the requirements of ESRs - ie you can't contract out of compliance with the law.
But there's nothing in relevant law (Act & ESRs) to prohibit a contractual requirement that the PEW be certified by a third party.
A CoC issued by the installer will satisfy the legal requirement set by ESR 65; but not the contractual requirement apparently set for this job.
Third-party certification is specifically required for PEW carried out under the 'homeowner" exemption.
And in fact this is the only case where ESRs specify who is responsible for issuing a mandated CoC.
ESR 65 simply requires that general & high risk PEW be certified.
No restrictions on who can do that; except that certification is itself PEW (as per Schedule 1).
Therefore any PEW (other than homeowner work) can be certified by anyone authorised to certify PEW.
And it happens routinely that the CoC for a job worked on by several licenced electrical workers is certified by just one
- who may or may not have done some of the physical work; and may never even have been on site.
Sure there are risks in doing this, because by issuing a CoC the issuer is accepting responsibility / liability for the work certified.
Perhaps unwise, but certainly not illegal.
Not only do ESRs conspicuously avoid stipulating who must certify PEW, they don't even make any person responsible for ensuring that it happens.
Same for inspection.
The only "driver' to make sure that certification and inspection actually do happen is in ESR 73A;
where the person about to connect has to sight - or issue - the relevant documents.
I don't think the idea of complaining to EWRB has any legs; because the person concerned (the "inspector") hasn't done any PEW.
If they had issued a CoC, they would have done some PEW - but then there would hardly be grounds for complaint.
As it is the argument appears to be entirely about fulfilling the terms of the contract, not about doing improper PEW