CU Change under 17th

[GaryMo]

I can't find that in the regs - can you provide a page & para. reference please? If it's not in the regs but just what NIC and/or other trade bodies require, then that is only relevant to their members as they don't write the regs.

I suppose the question is when carrying out a consumer unit change, what will the EIC you issue be covering?
Bear in mind you've changed the protective devices for all circuits so in some way they will also need certifying.

The ECA's viewpoint is that the EIC will cover the consumer unit and all outgoing circuits as the person carring out the work then becomes responsible for re-energising the circuits.

 

[equitum]

"Whether its a 3 part or one part, the fact remains that other than only for a PIR where LIM or X can be entered, you must enter a tick to say the result is satisfactory. Your argument therefore would mean that all inspections and tests relate, in this instance of a CU change, only to the actual consumer unit installation, and not the final circuits, which I think is unacceptable."

I can't find that in the regs - can you provide a page & para. reference please? If it's not in the regs but just what NIC and/or other trade bodies require, then that is only relevant to their members as they don't write the regs.

Its in the 17th regs, model forms, page 340.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Is that an apology then, as I find the "C" word to be very insulting !

No - it's me explaining that I was saying IF you spuriously said to a customer "it's the regs - they've changed, it's going to cost you more" then you would be a c*****.

Whether its a 3 part or one part, the fact remains that other than only for a PIR where LIM or X can be entered, you must enter a tick to say the result is satisfactory.

You need to look more closely at the bottom of the Schedule Of Inspections....

Your argument therefore would mean that all inspections and tests relate, in this instance of a CU change, only to the actual consumer unit installation, and not the final circuits, which I think is unacceptable.

Explain how most of the inspections relate to the actual job of a CU change. I'm not saying don't do them, but whatever you find when you do them is not a finding that results from what you are doing.

You are replacing the CU, so it is that job where you have to ensure that what you do complies with BS7671, and when you are testing and inspecting the existing wiring, you have to ensure that the testing and inspecting complies with BS7671, but you have no control over, and no responsibility for, what you find.

Forget the 17th and RCDs for a minute - if you're replacing a CU, and you find that a cable is incorrectly routed, then what can you possibly put on the EIC except an X in Box (a) under Cables and conductors?

Your sense of professionalism and ethics will determine what you actually do about it, but the regulations do not require you to remove and re-route the cable, or to refuse to connect that one to the CU, or to refuse to do the job at all.

Back to the original question, when changing a CU post July 2008, do all circuits with concealed cables < 50mm require RCD protection ?

I think the answer to that comes naturally when you consider these scenarios pre-17th:

When changing a CU, and you find a 2.5mm² radial on a B32, do you put it back on a B32, or change to a B20/B16?

When changing a CU, and you find that sockets reasonably expected to supply portable equipment outdoors are not RCD protected, do you leave them like that, or put them on an RCD?

When changing a CU, and you find that its a TT installation with no RCD incomer, do you leave it like that or put one in?

You are responsible for installing a CU which provides protection in accordance with the regulations.

I will try the NICEIC for their stance.

OK, but remember they like to think, erroneously, that they write the regs....

 

[equitum]

Whether its a 3 part or one part, the fact remains that other than only for a PIR where LIM or X can be entered, you must enter a tick to say the result is satisfactory.

You need to look more closely at the bottom of the Schedule Of Inspections....

Please elaborate, I have looked closely !

EDIT: My statement is true for the 17th edition, not 16th.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not got that yet.

But in the DPC, p340 does not have model forms, however where it does they are unchanged from the 16th - the schedule is the same for the 3-signatory EIC as it is the combined one and PIRs - nothing to say that if you are inspecting an existing circuit you can't put "unsatisfactory" against it.

 

[davelx]

"Whether its a 3 part or one part, the fact remains that other than only for a PIR where LIM or X can be entered, you must enter a tick to say the result is satisfactory. Your argument therefore would mean that all inspections and tests relate, in this instance of a CU change, only to the actual consumer unit installation, and not the final circuits, which I think is unacceptable."

I can't find that in the regs - can you provide a page & para. reference please? If it's not in the regs but just what NIC and/or other trade bodies require, then that is only relevant to their members as they don't write the regs.

Its in the 17th regs, model forms, page 340.

Thanks - not got mine yet!

 

[equitum]

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)"

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.

I am, after 3 years of domestic installs, beginning to think we split hairs on this forum, because in that time I have yet to find a householder in posession of an MWC or EIC (other than those I have left) at all . There was one EIC for a CU change previously carried out but the only circuit tests listed were the ones added for the kitchen at the same time, along with many other omissions, so it was invalid)

I can only hope that part P has improved this and more sparks are now completing what has always been required.

 

[Dippy]

Given the price of 9 RCBO's alone that must account for over half the cost of that install.

Not far wrong I've got the supplier down to £30 each, but will push harder for more discount

Fastlec sell certain rating MK RCBOs for a few quid less than that.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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"

I am, after 3 years of domestic installs, beginning to think we split hairs on this forum, because in that time I have yet to find a householder in posession of an MWC or EIC (other than those I have left) at all . There was one EIC for a CU change previously carried out but the only circuit tests listed were the ones added for the kitchen at the same time, along with many other omissions, so it was invalid)

It's not invalid - it's the only possible way that you can add new circuits.

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

 

[equitum]

[
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"

BAS, I totally agree. On one hand, for example, the NICEIC states you can change a CU on a property with lighting circuits without CPC, and yet we now have a BS7671 form that states you cant complete said CU change without ticks in all the boxes. Madness.

I am, after 3 years of domestic installs, beginning to think we split hairs on this forum, because in that time I have yet to find a householder in posession of an MWC or EIC (other than those I have left) at all . There was one EIC for a CU change previously carried out but the only circuit tests listed were the ones added for the kitchen at the same time, along with many other omissions, so it was invalid)

It's not invalid - it's the only possible way that you can add new circuits.

Of course its invalid, if you change a CU then the test schedule should detail ALL of the final circuits, not just ones you may have added at the same time.

 

[securespark]

As I read it, you said the EIC only had details of the circuits that had been installed. If so, that is OK.

It's only when you get into the realms of a board change that you need to record all circuits.

 

[equitum]

I am, after 3 years of domestic installs, beginning to think we split hairs on this forum, because in that time I have yet to find a householder in posession of an MWC or EIC (other than those I have left) at all . There was one EIC for a CU change previously carried out but the only circuit tests listed were the ones added for the kitchen at the same time, along with many other omissions, so it was invalid)

The clue that it was for a CU change was in the words "for a CU change"...how can you both read this wrongly ?

 

[securespark]

It's late. What's your excuse, Ban?

 

[Paul Barker]

Can you qualify the EIC as applying to the actual CU only, and write a PIR for the circuits connected to it and therefore X the relevant box, attach the two certs together with an explanatory note?

At the end of the day the Law has resonableness clauses, and something has to be tested in law for the final opinion to be proven. It is unreasonable to expect a dwelling to be brought up to 17th ed. just because the old wilex needs changing. It is furthermore reasonable to change an old wilex in isolation as it is after all an improvement to safety. To walk away from the job is worse than to improve the situation even if not to full modern standards.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

Because you can't record a fail on an EIC it's probably not sensible to issue an EIC for existing circuits when changing a CU.

It's probable that the only workable solution is a PIR for the existing installation, and, as I said back at the start, an EIC for the work that you do.