EICR : Should I Update My Consumer Unit first or have the EICR First ?

[JohnW2]

... I lost a freezer full of food just before I moved here, did not want a repeat so went for all RCBO ...

As I've said before, I know of at least one person who "lost a freezer full of food" because the freezer was supplied by a dedicated RCBO-protected circuit. I realise that it was the 'dedicated', rather than 'RCBO', which was the main problem, but the two often go hand-in-hand, so I think that people should be advised not to put a freezer on a dedicated circuit unless they have an adequate (battery-powered) 'freezer alarm'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[chivers67]

My kitchen Ring isn't on an RCD or RCBO. Looking at that board I'd get an EICR done first the cover looks like it's taken a battering alone!

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Get some testing done before the cu swap. You/electrician need to know the state of the cable insulation (and its construction, you'd hope there's no VIR in there but best check), whether there are any borrowed neutrals (landing lights are favourite for that), whether lighting circuits have a functional earth, whether RFCs are actually intact (ie both legs connected) etc etc.
£550 for CU swap, certification and notification isn't a bad price (specially for London) but it'll be based on a 3 hour in/out, any faults found would be extra (or not dealt with).
Given that you're planning to let it out you might want to look at additional power points (the old 1 double per room and 3 in the kitchen isn't really good enough these days, no actual fixed requirement to aim for as long as there are enough to minimise hazards from excessive use of extension cables.

 

[ericmark]

What @oldbutnotdead says is correct, as to possible faults, but why pay twice, before a consumer unit is changed the electrician has to check for borrowed neutrals for example, so need same guy to both change CU and do an EICR as a single job, so not duplicating on work done.

 

[scousespark]

In my first year in the trade I did a CU swap without a pre-test. The downstairs ring had a break in the cpc. It was a big old house with loads of rooms and I lost a day tracing the cable. There were 2 breaks were the grub screw had broken the cable. One socket behind a fish tank and one behind a book case. Took 2 minutes to fix. I won't start a CU change without a full inspection and walk away if the customer says no. It's not total duplication of effort testing before and after the change.

 

[JohnW2]

In my first year in the trade I did a CU swap without a pre-test. The downstairs ring had a break in the cpc. It was a big old house with loads of rooms and I lost a day tracing the cable. There were 2 breaks were the grub screw had broken the cable. One socket behind a fish tank and one behind a book case. Took 2 minutes to fix. I won't start a CU change without a full inspection and walk away if the customer says no. It's not total duplication of effort testing before and after the change.

Indeed.

I think that some of this may be essentially down to semantics (or, at least, charging), with 'an EICR' and a 'CU change' being regarded as two totally separate exercises. I would hope that not many people would jump straight into changing a CU without first doing at least some relevant 'inspection and testing', whether that be called a separate exercise (and charge) or part of the 'CU change'. When my 'hope' is not realised, maybe that is how some of the very low quotes for 'CU changes' come from?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

Indeed it is not duplication of effort. The installation certificate for the CU has a list of test results for each circuit. So one needs all the R1, R2 Rn info to go on the cert. Those (dead) tests will reveal any issues before you start. it’s not optional if the jobs being done properly.

 

[scousespark]

Indeed.

I think that some of this may be essentially down to semantics (or, at least, charging), with 'an EICR' and a 'CU change' being regarded as two totally separate exercises. I would hope that not many people would jump straight into changing a CU without first doing at least some relevant 'inspection and testing', whether that be called a separate exercise (and charge) or part of the 'CU change'. When my 'hope' is not realised, maybe that is how some of the very low quotes for 'CU changes' come from?

Kind Regards, John

I don't know why my post was not clear to you. When I am called t quote for a CU change I explain to the customer that before I can energise a circuit I have to confirm it is safe. I then explain my working practice is t carry out a full inspection/test and produce an EICR. If I find serious defects (C1, C2, FI) I run through the options. 1- The customer can pause the CU change (subject to me fixing any C1 defects, or giving the customer a warning notice; 2- Quote for any remedial work to fix any defects and then change the CU. My pricing takes into account that the EICR has the bulk of the test results so I'm not double charging.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't know why my post was not clear to you.

It was. Only the first paragraph (one word- "Indeed") was a direct response to what you had written.

The second paragraph (i.e. most of my post) was really directed at others. As you say, if I&T is done sensibly during the course of a CU change (before and during/after), as you do, there should not be any appreciable duplication of effort, and certainly no 'double charging.

That dos, of course, not exclude the possibility that some people (not you) may do things in a manner that does result in what is effectively, at least partially, 'double charging'.

Kind Regards, John