Online assistance for electrical trade people in New Zealand and Australia Login  |  Register  |   Forgot Password
Assistance for electrical trade people




Click here to send Ron a pdf document for publication on this Topic

Documents must be less than 200k in pdf format

Posted By Topic: COC/ESC PDF forms

May 01 2018 11:03

I\'m just wondering what people are using for PDF COCs?

I have been using the older EWRB form with the old EWRB logo and dark blue. It has been working fine for me, but it was point out to me that this was the old form.

So I got the new form from the EWRB site. New logo, light blue.

But on that form, there is no field for \"high risk, specify\" so that can\'t be filled in.

Also the check boxes for additions, alterations, low risk, high risk etc - you can\'t check multiple boxes if you\'re doing multiple type of work.

I suppose I should contact them about it..

Here\'s a link to the new form

May 01 2018 16:07

You could always make your own, there are some minimum requirements about what is needed. Shouldn\'t be too difficult to do in word or excel

May 04 2018 21:53

I think these forms waste too much space on logos and large print at the top, and the tick-boxes could be squeezed closer together, so there is sufficient space in the description box to actually describe the job.
I generally put PTO in that box and write or draw on the back.
If these forms are ever required in an investigation the first question is \'what was the guy actually doing?\'

May 05 2018 00:48

I\'ve emailed them about the problems with the new form, and MBIE replied that they have \"forwarded my feedback to the board\".

So they should be fixed momentarily.


May 05 2018 14:56

Thanks Doug, I am confident it will be fixed with their usual speed and efficiency.

Does anyone else have problems printing this form? It looks okay on my screen but some of the characters are scrambled (F becomes a small circle).

May 05 2018 18:20

I tried printing the EWRB form out and gave up. It kept missing letters of the start and ends of the text and titles. I now buy triplicate COC/ESC pads, makes life far easier. Looking at getting my own printed up in the near future to allow more room for a description and to get rid of some unnecessary boxes like \"number of power points, number of HWCs, number of ranges\".

May 05 2018 19:43

I have the original version PDF if you want a copy.

May 05 2018 20:34

If you want to do COCs electronically I find that the SnapCert app works ok.
Doesn’t really work that well to begin with but once you figure out how to work in with the apps glitches - seems to work pretty good.

May 11 2018 02:11

This is mine. Done in word and current saved as template, so when opened as a template I can save under new name each time.

Try it if you wish.

It is saved as a locked file so the form filling function works, and and be edited by unlocking with the Pin [1].

I had logo for each of the companies I worked with placed in the upper left.

I was annoyed with the EWRB version ages ago as this on automatically expands to allow more info unlike the EWRB version.!AkVRxrUJbp-8fDssX6mFPjfXD6c

May 11 2018 11:29

One oversight here is that if you\'re not doing part 2 work you\'d have to specify that it\'s to part 1 because (at least to my reading) ESR 67 requires that you actually record whether it\'s to part 1 rather than implying it is by not recording that it\'s to part 2.

Mine also specifies the supply system by default so you only need to add extra info if you\'re not connecting to a 230/400V MEN system, and has safe to connect (except where identified) so you don\'t need to fill out a separate CoC for partial work that\'s not safe to connect yet.

Also I prefer a separate document for CoC vs ESC so you can leave items unconnected without getting a query from the customer about a blank section on your paperwork. Admittedly this means 2 descriptions of work, but that\'s only a problem if you\'re filling out the form by hand. I usually do it all on the computer.

Very nice of you to share your work

May 11 2018 17:02

Thanks for sharing your form mralarms.

I think I\'ll just stick with the old EWRB form until they update the new one.

May 11 2018 22:05

Your right about the part 1 vs part 2, but I just done wanna go there with part 1.

I also have the ESC and COC individual versions for when I need though general doing COC and ESC.

Longer term for myself I\'ll build in auto email and other features.

May 26 2018 13:33

They have updated the form.
I haven\'t been through it fully yet, but they seem to have addressed most of the items I emailed them about.

May 26 2018 18:33

I can’t see why they still insist on wasting form space with test results.
There is no requirement to record test results on a esc or coc.
The space could be better utilised to expand the description box.
Test results should be recorded in a suitable spreadsheet based form or even a page of your diary.
All that is required on an esc or coc is the statement that you have tested as required by the ESR’s and that is taken care of by the tick box already on the page.

May 26 2018 21:30

Did you try typing on that new form Sarmajor?

As you type in the description box and add more lines, the font gets smaller and smaller... clever...

You can fit at least 18 lines before is scrolls over...

There\'s a few minor glitches with it. The \"radio\" boxes look slightly different, and the tabbing through fields doesn\'t work properly.

But they\'ve implemented most of the fixes and changes I asked them about. Including a decent sized field to describe high risk work, and a field for \"type of supply system\".

May 27 2018 19:03

No problem with the rest of the form just the stubborn inclusion of the test results box which is not required information on either an esc or a coc.

May 29 2018 16:41

Actually there IS a problem with the new EWRB \"combi-cert\" form (I know I\'ve come to this party late, but I haven\'t had time for a careful check until today).
One of the mandatory things to be included in any CoC is the date on (or period in) which the work was carried out [ESR 67(2)(e)]
Which of course can be (very) different from the date of certification.
yet there\'s no provision for it; while (as others have observed) they continue to include things that are neither necessary nor particularly relevant. Some are not relevant at all.

Such as
- \"additions / alterations / new work (not relevant at all)
- Has an earthing system that is correctly rated. possibly relevant for an ESC, as part of the checks-before connecting. NOT relevant to a CoC.
- contains fittings that are safe to connect to a power supply
- has been tested in accordance with ESRs
Both of these are covered by the declaration \"safe & complaint\"

The space for test results is inadequate for any but the very smallest of jobs; with max a single circuit / part circuit involved. And limits polarity to \"independent earth\", which is only relevant to mains & PEN submains.

Additionally instead of allowing certifiers to indicate \"which parts of the installation, if any, are safe to connect\"[ESR 67(1)(f)]; it has an all-or-nothing tickbox.

The ESC portion fails to \"clearly statewhether the ESC relates to the whole of the installation or just to specified parts of it\" [ESR 67(2)(b).

It also uses the term \"certifier\", which fails to make clear that it must be signed by the person who actually made the connection.

And it has no provision for recording that person\'s supervisor and their registration number. (which is very strange; since the whole concept of w \'Trainee Limited certificate\" was to give trainees a number they could use when filling in ESCs)

So - once again - the Board have let the trade down. A pity the new logo took precedence over providing a complaint form.

May 29 2018 17:45

Alec k

As you seem to be very critical of attempts by others to produce a prefect compliant form; now is time for your ideal form to be put up for all to see.

May 29 2018 18:47

Pluto +1

May 29 2018 18:51

How about a field to link the ROI and the Inspectors details ?

May 29 2018 19:10

I think you haven\'t been looking at the latest version of the forms. As can be expected, some links from the ERWB website go to old forms, or don\'t work at all.

The new combination form, has a long field for \"date or range of dates\" for the work.
And a long field for filling in which parts of the installation the certificate is for. Plus a huge description field.

The ESC only form, has checkbox for all or part, plus a huge description field.

Take a look at the forms from the link below.

Dlink. For the ROI details it works the other way around. The inspector lists the electricians details and COC identifier on the ROI, which then also goes into the high risk database.

May 29 2018 20:02

I used the link you provide in your OP.

Yes the form at the end of your latest link is different - not branded EWRB, and at quick glance not as many errors / omissions.

Will need to check it more carefully; along with the others.

It\'s NOT my job to provide stationery. But anyone who chooses to do so has a responsibility to get it right.
Especially so when it\'s the same body that sits in judgement on our competence to practise as electrical workers.

It\'s an offence to issue a non-compliant document, and it will be NO excuse that the offending document is a form prepared by someone else.
In recent and earlier audits, minor omissions in certification forms have been commented on adversely by Energy safety.
The take-home point being: trust no-one, and check whatever you intend to use against ESRs. Very carefully.


May 29 2018 20:18

Sorry I wasn\'t clear Alec. They updated the form between my first post on the 1st of May, and my next link on the 26th of May.

I had emailed them a long list of deficiencies about that original form. They seem to have fixed them all, and made additional changes as well.

It looks like the COC should be compliant? But possibly not using the combined form as an ESC by itself - unless the top section is also mostly completed as well.

I look forward to your critique.

May 30 2018 09:28

On a quick check, I agree many of the faults have been rectified; so this one will not be non-compliant in most cases.

However there is still stuff included that is simply not relevant / necessary; the test results remains almost useless; there\'s still a failure to distinguish clearly between \"certifier\" (who signs the CoC portion) and \"person who connected\" (who must sign the ESC portion), and there\'s no provision for sign-off of the ESC portion by a supervisor.

True in most cases that suit use of a combi-cert (allowed under ESR 111A) the certifier & person connecting are likely to be the same; but the form should provide for every eventuality. Same for the supervisor bit.

I suspect what they\'ve done is link to Energy Safety\'s form. Difficult to be sure, \'cos it\'s near impossible to find anything relating to Energy Safety since their website was amalgamated into Worksafe\'s. But it certainly looks very similar to the one ES produced for the 2013 ESRs Amendment.

I\'ll do a detailed check (of all EWRB-linked cert forms), and post a critique, when I get time.

The chief problem with including non-mandatory items is that it takes up space that\'s needed for mandatory items. Not so bad with \"expanding\" text boxes; but no use if instead of expanding the text shrinks, because at some stage the document will need to be printed and the small text will be un-readable. And absolutely no use if writing on paper. Of course an attachment can be used, and to allow for this boxes such as DoW could include a tick-box. SDoCs is another where there are likely to be far too many \"links\" to enter for the space available.

In particular, for test results, even a very small job needs far more room than any A4-sized cert form can squeeze in. EG for adding 3 sockets to one circuit, there\'s a visual check (which incorporates probably at least a dozen items)three ECCs, at least one IR, three polarities, at least one CCC, either at least one EFLI or at least one RCD test, plus phase rotation if three-phase. For EFLI, the result is meaningless unless the test method used is recorded. And if only the worst-case result of each type is recorded (to save space), the number of tests should be recorded. Then there are a range of other tests that may be relevant depending on the job.
There are some fairly good test result sheets available, though most paper pones still can\'t fit all results into one line per circuit. And even the most thorough and extensive recording doesn\'t prove the tests were actually done, any more than ticking the box would; but it may show the certifier at least knows what sort of result is acceptable. Testing takes time, and recording takes even more. Time is money. So better to just have a tick-box on the CoC for \"test results attached\"; for those who wish to do so.

May 30 2018 14:16

I presume there\'s a legal limit for how small text can be before it\'s deemed illegible.
Just entering the 4 extra standards required for a mains parallel system with a PV array in a caravan park makes the text pretty tiny.