Consumer Unit Move

[JohnW2]

Indeed, and for that reason I would interrogate someone extensively about their opinions before considering getting them to do work for me!

Why - are there some opinions held by qualified and experienced electricians which you are competent to disagree with, argue against, and judge them on?

Why? Because it would be crazy not to. You have said that it is the opinion of the person undertaking the work which would determine whether (and to what extent) non-compliances with current wiring regulations should be resolved at the time of the proposed work. Given the size of this property, and the complexity of the electrical installation, that opinion could have a dramatic effect on the extent and cost of work - so I would be crazy not to get a very clear idea about the person's opinion before deciding whether I wanted (or could afford!) to have them do the work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

If you remove something then resite it can we break it down as a subtraction followed by an addition?

Some might think so, then it would be classed as an addition rather than a simple alteration by that fact alone before regarding any added cable.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I made it very clear that I was talking about relocating an existing CU, not "replacing it with a different one";

So you've already decided that the existing one will comply with the 17th edition of the Wiring Regulations?

as for the remainder, I suppose some would agree that it is technically correct to consider that extending each final circuit by about 4 feet amounts to "changing the characteristics" of all those circuits, although that does make it sound a bit dramatic!

It's not meant to be dramatic - it is a simple statement of fact.

And whether you like it or not, every single circuit will need to be tested.

However, more to the point, your summary has cunningly skipped over the specific "question originally posted" (actually two questions), and jumped to my final "any thoughts?" comment, which was intended to refer back to my actual questions

They had already been answered. If you're looking for some sort of poll I'd vote for the DIN rail terminals in an enclosure.

 

[JohnW2]

I made it very clear that I was talking about relocating an existing CU, not "replacing it with a different one";

So you've already decided that the existing one will comply with the 17th edition of the Wiring Regulations?

Yes, as I wrote to you previously, the CU itself and associated issues (RCD protection, division of circuits, sizing of earth conductor, MEB, feed and finals etc. etc.) is already compliant. Non-compliance is more peripheral (inaccessible JBs etc.)

And whether you like it or not, every single circuit will need to be tested.

Indeed, and I've never suggested otherwise. In fact, my understanding of the regs is that this would probably still be true even if the CU were being replaced by an identical one (with identical contents) in the identical location.

However, more to the point, your summary has cunningly skipped over the specific "question originally posted" (actually two questions), and jumped to my final "any thoughts?" comment, which was intended to refer back to my actual questions

They had already been answered. If you're looking for some sort of poll I'd vote for the DIN rail terminals in an enclosure.

Thank you very much. I wouldn't say that I'm looking for a poll, but (just as with quotes/estimates!) it's always nice to have several opinions. It certainly is a very neat and practical method; it looks as if the thing which might take the most looking for is an enclosure of sensible size and shape - wide ones tend to be unnecessarily high and deep, but we may have to live with that, or use two or more enclosures.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If you remove something then resite it can we break it down as a subtraction followed by an addition?
Some might think so, then it would be classed as an addition rather than a simple alteration by that fact alone before regarding any added cable.

As you say, some might think that, but it certainly doesn't seem to be how Part P thinks, and probably not either the wiring regs. For example, in terms of notifiability, Part P makes a clear distinction between replacing a ('damaged') cable and (with some exceptions) adding a new cable - so they are clearly not thinking that "resiting=removal+addition" as a general concept.
In any event, I'm not sure it actually makes much different because, as I've just written to BAS, I think that all circuits would probably need to be tested regardless of how one chose to think about what had been done

Kind Regards, John..

 

[OwainDIYer]

I'm sure that anybody who isn't a complete tw** can provide a rational and intelligent explanation of why the skills and knowledge needed, and procedures that should sensibly be followed, when changing a CU and changing the characteristics of every single final circuit would not change by one iota were Part P to be revoked.

Hopefully there would be a change of expecting people who do the work to be competent, instead of relying on corporate membership of schemes with varying laxity of supervision and qualification criteria.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How evaluated and checked is another issue.

The question here is would the skills and knowledge needed, and procedures that should sensibly be followed change if Part P was revoked?

 

[JohnW2]

How evaluated and checked is another issue.
The question here is would the skills and knowledge needed, and procedures that should sensibly be followed change if Part P was revoked?

Indeed so, that is a wise and common sense statement of what really matters.

As we are only too aware of in this increasingly regulated world, the problem with any sort of regulation (banks?!) is that it is crucially dependent upon the quality of the regulation and its implementation/'policing'. In the present context, the danger is that less-than-perfect regulation (and 'policing' thereof) can, and probably does, result in people being officially considered to be 'competent' when they really aren't (even if they posses the right bits of paper and belong to the right organisations), whilst other people are not officially considered competent when they probably are.

I will undoubtedly attract some flack by saying this, but I would suggest that, given an understanding of the underlying concepts and considerations, the thing most crucial to competence and safety (in an everyday, not regulatory, sense) is the possession of common sense, rather than certificates and membership cards - and I have to say that I have come across a good few people (not you!), in many professions and fields, who are officially classified as qualified/experienced/'competent', and could recite the regulations under which they work whilst standing on their heads and drinking a yard of ale, but who do or suggest some pretty silly (or even crazy) things because of failure to apply common sense. Maybe those who religiously attached earth clamps to plastic pipes when they first appeared on the scene would be an example of that!

Another reason for needing common sense is that no set of regulations can be exhaustive (the real world contains too much variability of situations), so that too much inflexible 'mandatory' stuff in regulations can be inappropriate and result in silliness - but the moment one allows flexibility and discretion, the common sense of those applying it again becomes crucial.

Kind Regards, John