CU Change under 17th

[ebee]

That "small change" has made a potential "dogs breakfast " into a "Big breakfast" methinks.

Like Ban said, it`s madness and just can`t be what was intended, can it?

 

[ebee]

Ban,
do I have your permission to paraphrase the points you mentioned here on "another forum"?
I certainly think you have something here that requires a great deal of pondering and might even get back to those who write the regs.



PS I will not make the identity of any of the posters known

 

[Paul Barker]

If inly because it makes our work possible I like Bans response, but also it has to be the only legally enforseable interpretation of the regs applying the reasonable principle of law.

The regs are not law they can be used in law but subordinately to law itself therefore legal principles dominate.

 

[GaryMo]

Ban,

I agree on a PIR for the existing circuits but what covers the changes to these circuits (new protective devices)?

 

[equitum]

I didn't read it wrongly.

Possibly answered it unclearly.

IF you decide that your EIC for the change of a CU has to cover all of the existing circuits then that is when you have backed yourself into the corner of not being able to change the CU if there are any non-compliances on any of the existing circuits.

Thats why for a CU Change I will state on estimate that it will be
a) the cost of a PIR followed by
b) additional charge for rectification of non compliances if required plus
c) cost of actual CU change, test and certification.

If after payment of a) customer is unwilling to pay for b) then you can walk away !

 

[ban-all-sheds]

ebee - please do post on the IET forum.

equitum - PIRs can easily have LIMs on them.

My example above is not far-fetched. Are you really going to certify that an underground cable complies with the regulations? Are you really going to certify that any cable you can't see complies with the regulations? Are you really going to certify that in a house there isn't one contravention of 526-01-04 anywhere?

The list goes on - if you cannot issue an EIC without fails and LIMs then you cannot realistically issue an EIC at all.

You're going to be walking away from more and more business - people simply will not pay thousands, or even hundreds, of pounds just for you to dig up paving or hack into walls or lift floors so you can verify that what you can't see is OK....

 

[ebee]

OK Ban I will not.
`tis a good point that`s been raised though and certainly needs thinking about though.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

ebee - please do post on the IET forum.

OK Ban I will not.

 

[ebee]

Silly me,
did I misread it.
Ok then I will post it.

 

[ebee]

Right done it . let`s see what happens

 

[Pensdown]

That "small change" has made a potential "dogs breakfast " into a "Big breakfast" methinks.

Like Ban said, it`s madness and just can`t be what was intended, can it?

I must be missing something?

When filling out a schedule of test results for a new installation the schedule of tests only applies to the work detailed in the "Description & Extent Of The Installation". Therefore there should never be an X and for domestic work there is no reason for LIM either.

For a straight CU change, (which would include all code 1 items identified when surveyed) N/A is entered for the tests that don’t apply, i.e. existing cables in walls etc.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

you only have to ensure that the work you do complies with the current regulations.

 

[Pensdown]

There is only one schedule of Inspections in the 17th model forms, as was the case for 16th. The difference is the note at the bottom on the 17th version which states clearly :

"Tick to indicate a test has been carried out and the result is satisfactory

"X to indicate a test has been carried out and the result is not satisfactory (applicable for a periodic inspection only)"

LIM to indicate, exceptionally, a limitation agreed with the person ordering the work prevented the inspection being carried out (applicable for a periodic inspection only)"

Well that is a massive change - don't see it as small at all.

It means that if you are doing the I&T part of a 3-part EIC you cannot fail an installation.

So since the outcome of a PIR does not include compulsion to fix things, what is the point of ever being able to put an X against anything?

Its a small change but the consequences are that the certificate reflects my previous assumption (based on NICEIC brainwashing) that for an EIC all boxes must be ticked and therefore you are responsible for ensuring that the whole installation is satisfactory when issuing one, upon for example, a CU change.

That is utter madness, and totally unworkable - the whole system breaks down.

I'll repeat the example I gave earlier - if you find a cable that is incorrectly routed and you can't put an X on the EIC, then you can't replace the CU.

So all this talk of the regulations not being retroactive is complete b*ll*cks.

It means that if someone has something non-compliant with their installation they can't have a new CU.

Is that really how it should work?

How is leaving someone with no rcd, rewirable fuses, and a concealed cable in the wrong place better for all concerned than leaving them with MCBs/RCDs/RCBOs, and a concealed cable in the wrong place?

"Hello - is that Acme Electrical?"

"Yes - how can I help?"

"I'd like an extractor fan in my bathroom"

"OK - that means that the bathroom circuits will have to now be RCD protected, which means your CU will need replacing, so it will cost about £5000, because I don't know how deep the cable under the patio to your summerhouse is, so it will all have to be dug up"

That "small change" in the notes for the schedules in the 17th has got implications of enormous magnitude.

So how will the changes make any difference?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They'll make a difference to people like equitum - they'll be walking away from a lot of work.