Certificates and their value

They are cumulative, and none admits exception. Scope, date and reach are checked together.

The limit of scope. The certificate covers what was inspected, and nothing else. A document relating to an installation says nothing about the rest of the building.

The limit of date. It attests a state observed at a moment. What has been modified since falls outside its reach, which makes a certificate followed by works obsolete.

The limit of reach. It records compliance with a defined framework, not general quality nor the absence of any defect.

A document appearing to exceed those three limits should be reread. An overly general wording more often reflects loose drafting than extended cover.

Limit	What it means	Question to ask
Scope	The certificate covers what was inspected, and nothing else	What exactly was inspected?
Date	It records a state observed at a given moment	Has any work been done since?
Reach	It records conformity with one identified framework	Which framework, and in which version?

Five elements to identify, in this order. All of them appear on the document itself.

The exact object of the inspection, defining the scope.

The framework applied, with its version, since a report is worth something only against an identified framework.

The date of the visit, distinct from the date of issue of the document.

The findings, distinguishing non-compliances from observations.

The conclusion, which must be consistent with the findings, which is not always the case.

Identification of the body and its number finally allow authenticity and authorisation to be checked, as the article on inspection bodies explains.

The distinction is essential and often blurred in the documents themselves. A product certificate and a works certificate are not equivalent.

A non-compliance records a departure from the framework. It calls for correction, and the document carries the record of it.

An observation flags a point of attention without constituting a departure. It does not bind, but it is far from neutral.

An untreated observation becomes evidence against you. It shows the point was known, which considerably weakens the position of whoever did not address it, particularly against the standard of good practice.

Good practice is therefore to address observations or to document why they were not.

A special case that often surprises, because it arises long after construction. It concerns the certificates requested on resale.

Some certificates must be produced on a sale or letting, and their validity is limited in time. A document obtained at the end of construction may therefore need renewal much later.

Two practical consequences.

One must know which documents exist and where they are, which presupposes organised retention.

One must know their period of validity, which varies with the nature of the document and the use of the property.

Absence of a document at the time of a transaction does not make the property non-compliant, but it blocks or delays the operation, producing a real cost.

An apparently trivial point, decisive in practice. The certificate must still be kept and retrievable years later.

Three habits suffice.

Keep certificates with the project documents, not separately, so they remain attachable to the works.

Keep the complete reports, not only the conclusions. A report reduced to its last page loses the record of findings and observations.

Keep them beyond acceptance, since liability may be engaged for years, as the article on good practice and liability recalls.

Four rules.

Read the scope before the conclusion. A favourable conclusion on a narrow scope says almost nothing.

Address the observations, or record the reason for not doing so.

Check the date of the visit and not only that of the document, particularly where works followed.

Organise retention from acceptance onwards, not when a document is demanded.