Should I replace this consumer unit?

[JohnW2]

Why is the fact that it is a rental flat relevant in the decision about the type of breakers?

One consideration ... with RCD(s), rather than RCBOs, tripping of one can result in loss of much (maybe even all) of the electricity supply to the property, which can result in increased hassle for landlords and rental agents in having to rapidly take action to resolve the problem.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

God you're hard work .

If you think pricing is the same per hour across the whole UK you must live in a strange world, it varies across the same postcodes and as for my example - that is precisely what it is. 2 randomly picked places where the demographics and incomes are quite different.

Indeed one doesn't have to travel far to see the difference. I'm only 30 miles from City of London and my (self employed) day rate is at least 60% higher there just to cover travel etc. compared to my 'just job, just round the corner' which I seem to pick up a few within walking distance. However my London rate is competitive compared to their locals rates.

By the time my employer adds their cut it's at least doubled.

 

[Murdochcat]

Indeed one doesn't have to travel far to see the difference. I'm only 30 miles from City of London and my (self employed) day rate is at least 60% higher there just to cover travel etc. compared to my 'just job, just round the corner' which I seem to pick up a few within walking distance. However my London rate is competitive compared to their locals rates.

By the time my employer adds their cut it's at least doubled.

Precisely.

Quite why @JohnW2 can't get this is beyond me ................

 

[Murdochcat]

Why is the fact that it is a rental flat relevant in the decision about the type of breakers?

Rental flats should have RCD protection on the electrical circuits, so

If the spark suggests a single upfront RCD fuseboard - in the event of a fault - the tenant loses ALL the circuits (this won't comply with the latest regs either)

If the spark suggests a dual RCD fuseboard - in the event of a fault - the tenant loses HALF of the circuits (its questionable if this complies with the latest regulations)

If the spark suggests a RCBO fuseboard - in the event of a fault - the tenant loses ONE circuit = far less hassle for the landlord AND its quicker to identify and resolve the problem(s). This configuration will comply with the regulations AND when AFDD's are mandated, which they will, it will be a simple case of removing a RCBO and fitting an AFDD.

Hope this helps

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed one doesn't have to travel far to see the difference. I'm only 30 miles from City of London and my (self employed) day rate is at least 60% higher there just to cover travel etc. compared to my 'just job, just round the corner' which I seem to pick up a few within walking distance.

That's fair enough, but different from what we are talking about.

In general, the amount of travel (certainly distance, maybe also time) is likely to be less in areas like central London than in rural areas (including rural Wales), but, in any part of the UK, one would (reasonably) expect charges to reflect any required substantial amounts af travel mileage/time. However ....

However my London rate is competitive compared to their locals rates.

What if you lived in the City of London (i..e. just around the corner' from work in the City of London). Would you still think it justifiable/reasonable to charge a lot more (for work in the City of London) than you currently charge for work which was 'just around the corner' from your current location - and, if so, why?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

That's fair enough, but different from what we are talking about.

In general, the amount of travel (certainly distance, maybe also time) is likely to be less in areas like central London than in rural areas (including rural Wales), but, in any part of the UK, one would (reasonably) expect charges to reflect any required substantial amounts af travel mileage/time. However ....

What if you lived in the City of London (i..e. just around the corner' from work in the City of London). Would you still think it justifiable/reasonable to charge a lot more (for work in the City of London) than you currently charge for work which was 'just around the corner' from your current location - and, if so, why?

Kind Regards, John

Please stop this nonsense

 

[SUNRAY]

What if you lived in the City of London (i..e. just around the corner' from work in the City of London). Would you still think it justifiable/reasonable to charge a lot more (for work in the City of London) than you currently charge for work which was 'just around the corner' from your current location - and, if so, why?
Kind Regards, John

Having done around 50% of my work in London 1995-2015 I feel I am in a position to pass an opinion. The cost of being in London IS higher, £50 per day simply to park the van is normal, congestion charge, LEZ, slow travel speed etc and suddenly it's £100, per day or £25K per year compared to basically none of that elsewhere . That is the situation whether one lives in or outside London, then start adding the cost of living in London is significantly higher than my home which is why I'm able to undercut the locals.

 

[JohnW2]

Having done around 50% of my work in London 1995-2015 I feel I am in a position to pass an opinion.

Indeed.

The cost of being in London IS higher, £50 per day simply to park the van is normal, congestion charge, LEZ, slow travel speed etc and suddenly it's £100, per day or £25K per year compared to basically none of that elsewhere .

Fair enough - although I think that much/most of that is fairlyy specific to London. Even if one gets away from London, there still seem to be pretty substantial differences between charges in different parts of the country, even when factors such as you mention are not such a major issue.

In any event, my personal view is that overheads which are directly job-specific are most fairly dealt with ('transparently') as such.

I am not a tradesperson, and much of my ('professional') work is, these days, undertaken 'remotely' (i.e. from home, with minimal overheads). However, even if/when I am required to physically appear at a client's premises, my 'hourly rate' (for work) is exactly the same no matter where in the country (or, indeed, the world) the service is being provided.

However, on top of my 'hourly rate for professional time', I additionally explicitly charge, 'at cost' for specific overheads, such as mileage, parking, congestion charges, overnight accommodation/meals etc. etc. (and also 'travelling time'). Similarly, although I don't deal with 'materials' as such, if I incur any direct costs as a consequence of providing my services ('disbursements') I also pass on those ('at cost') to the client, again separate from my 'hourly rate for services'.

That seems much fairer, more reasonable and more 'transparent' than would be the case if I simply hiked my hourly rate. - and, indeed, is 'the norm' that my clients generally expect (or demand).

That is the situation whether one lives in or outside London, ...

As above, I think it's probably much 'worse' in London and its surrounds than anywhere else.

then start adding the cost of living in London is significantly higher than my home which is why I'm able to undercut the locals.

True but, as I've said, other than for (pretty pathetic) 'London Weighting' where it exists, the millions employed by 'nationwide' employers (particularly 'the State') generally have to accept, and cope with, their income being the same, regardless of where they work, or live or how expensive is the cost of living there.

I certainly wouldn't expect, or expect my clients to accept, my appreciably increasing my 'hourly rate' should I decide to move my home to a very high cost-of-living part of central London, and nor would I expect a client in London to accept an increase in my hourly rate because they were based in (and may require me to travel to) London.!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

...

I certainly wouldn't expect, or expect my clients to accept, my appreciably increasing my 'hourly rate' should I decide to move my home to a very high cost-of-living part of central London, and nor would I expect a client in London to accept an increase in my hourly rate because they were based in (and may require me to travel to) London.!

Kind Regards, John

Does it really matter how it's described?
In my experience all they want to know how much it will cost to have me there.
Generally I've found the client only wants to know the specific itemised costs of anything they can claim expenses/tax relief in a different way/different rate/different budget.
I find people in 'expensive areas' fully understand the difference and the reasons.

 

[SUNRAY]

...

True but, as I've said, other than for (pretty pathetic) 'London Weighting' where it exists, the millions employed by 'nationwide' employers (particularly 'the State') generally have to accept, and cope with, their income being the same, regardless of where they work, or live or how expensive is the cost of living there.

...

Kind Regards, John

Now you're talking about something different.
Having being employed by a big nationwide employer it appears you are now referring to the expenses of getting their employee to site and expect to see a breakdown/receipts from their employee.

I don't believe I have ever passed such details on to any of my end user customers.

A typical estimate or invoice would be along the lines of:

To attend Fred Bloggs headquarters to modify the flangle stringer to specification ABC123

Materials;
List of materials individually at the cost I charge which may be marked up to cover the cost of acquisition
Or may simply be lumped together, especially if specified by another

Sub total £1234.56p

Labour;

10 days @ £987.00p £9870.00p

Total £11104.56

Not sure how formatting will cope?

Fred Bloggs company will be unlikely to want breakdown of labour charge, If they did would they want to know how much I pay my accountant, my business premises rent & rates etc?

 

[JohnW2]

Does it really matter how it's described?

It's not a question of how it is described but, rather, a question of how 'surcharges' (to cover possible 'overheads' are applied.

Expecting to recover actual expenses incurred is straightforward (and accepted), but is very different from hiking up the charge for every hour of one's actual work on the basis that, because of where there are, there could be appreciable overheads (travelling time, mileage, parking etc. etc.).

Even if I were based in the most expensive part of London, would it be reasonable for me to charge a customer who was 'just around the corner' a lot more for every hour of the work I did because other jobs I did might incur appreciable area-specific overheads?

In my experience all they want to know how much it will cost to have me there. ... Generally I've found the client only wants to know the specific itemised costs of anything they can claim expenses/tax relief in a different way/different rate/different budget.

We seemingly function in different worlds. In mine, there is an established (approximate) 'going rate' for hours of professional time, certainly 'nationally', but to a large extent also internationally, regardless of the location of the client and the service provider. When 'tendering' for a job, one is judged by one's hourly rate, with the understanding that any necessary and agreed expenses will be charged for over and above that. If I tried to increase my hourly rate in general, so as to cover those expenses if/when I incurred them, I would simply price myself out of the market.

I quite often undertake hundreds of hours of work for a particular client. If they paid appreciably more for each of those hours of my time because I was attempting to recover 'possible overheads', they would be paying a fortune for what might well turn out to be minimal overheads' in the particular case. That would not be considered acceptable.

For a very long time, my clients have required 'itemised costs' for that reason, not the least because 'cost of services' and 'consequent expenses' often come out of different internal 'budgets' - whether the expenses are incurred by employees or external people.

I find people in 'expensive areas' fully understand the difference and the reasons.

They obviously understand the existence of the difference between costs in different parts of the country, but what I am questioning is whther they (in fact, anyone) actually understand the reasons, and find those reasons reasonable/justifiable.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... Having being employed by a big nationwide employer it appears you are now referring to the expenses of getting their employee to site and expect to see a breakdown/receipts from their employee.

Not at all. I'm talking about postmen, doctors, nurses, hospital cleaners, 'civil servants', police officers, train drivers etc. etc. etc. None of those can recover the cost (or notion cost of their time) of their getting to their place of work, yet, other than the few who get 'London Weighting', they are paid the same regardless of where they are in the UK, and regardless of what the local cost of living may be.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

It's not a question of how it is described but, rather, a question of how 'surcharges' (to cover possible 'overheads' are applied.

Expecting to recover actual expenses incurred is straightforward (and accepted), but is very different from hiking up the charge for every hour of one's actual work on the basis that, because of where there are, there could be appreciable overheads (travelling time, mileage, parking etc. etc.).

Even if I were based in the most expensive part of London, would it be reasonable for me to charge a customer who was 'just around the corner' a lot more for every hour of the work I did because other jobs I did might incur appreciable area-specific overheads?

We seemingly function in different worlds. In mine, there is an established (approximate) 'going rate' for hours of professional time, certainly 'nationally', but to a large extent also internationally, regardless of the location of the client and the service provider. When 'tendering' for a job, one is judged by one's hourly rate, with the understanding that any necessary and agreed expenses will be charged for over and above that. If I tried to increase my hourly rate in general, so as to cover those expenses if/when I incurred them, I would simply price myself out of the market.

I quite often undertake hundreds of hours of work for a particular client. If they paid appreciably more for each of those hours of my time because I was attempting to recover 'possible overheads', they would be paying a fortune for what might well turn out to be minimal overheads' in the particular case. That would not be considered acceptable.

For a very long time, my clients have required 'itemised costs' for that reason, not the least because 'cost of services' and 'consequent expenses' often come out of different internal 'budgets' - whether the expenses are incurred by employees or external people.

They obviously understand the existence of the difference between costs in different parts of the country, but what I am questioning is whther they (in fact, anyone) actually understand the reasons, and find those reasons reasonable/justifiable.

Kind Regards, John

I understand all of that and do not have any argument against your findings. Equally I do not any issue with going to the effort you do on a regular basis rather than evening it out. Basically I have arrived at a 'London rate' that works for me and I don't see why that should be a problem.

17 years ago I did a job for a well known "multinational professional services network, and one of the Big Four accounting organizations" where I tendered to do a modification to their AV systems in 10 venues across the country and an 11th in Paris. Each venue was individually priced in the same document with the expectation they would 'pick and chose' and the labour costs included predicted expenses without any financial breakdown. They opted to go with a different contractor for 2 in Scotland and the Paris office which I assume was for financial or 'preferred contractor' reasons. However they accepted the range of 5 different labour rates on the 8 offices without comment (one based on the branch providing on site accommodation FOC). Leeds, Bristol and Birmingham were the most expensive due to the distance and 2 overnight stays, the cheapest of course being the 2 branches most local to me.
I would have thought that they in particular would have been quick to jump on the difference if it was irregular.

 

[JohnW2]

I understand all of that and do not have any argument against your findings.

I apologies for the length of this! I need not tell you that brevity of writing is not one of my conspicuous virtues

t's not so much 'findings' as 'the way it has been (dictated by clients) for decades and, perhaps more important, the way in which all those with whom I have been 'competing for work' have done things. I have, however, somewhat over-simplified how things work for me (see below).

Equally I do not any issue with going to the effort you do on a regular basis rather than evening it out.

As above, it has not really been 'by choice', even though it has seemed pretty reasonable ('very fair') to me.

Whether or not 'evening out' is a practical and reasonable way of doing things probably depends a lot upon the nature and extent of the work, and the extent to which overheads are fairly consistent across jobs..

As above, I have oversimplified 'my world'. As with any self-employed person (or company running a business), my 'charge out rate' takes into account all the standard, fairly predictable, annual overheads, translated into a 'per hour' figure on the basis of an estimated number of hours work per year - which is why those 'charge out rates' are so much higher than the hourly pay rates that an employee would expect for doing the same work. Those 'built-in overheads include (for a person like me) such things as insurance, provision for holidays and sickness, part of NIC, heating/lighting of 'home office', (part) provision/maintenance of a vehicle, telephone costs, cost of maintaining/replacing IT etc. equipment, 'office supplies' etc. etc. and a provision for 'reasonable amounts' of travel (including 'travel time')

Whilst ('over-simplifying') I have said that I explicitly re-claim the cost of 'expenses' from a client, that only relates to expenses beyond those which are already built into my 'hourly charge'. This is usually reflected in the contracts, which generally specify rates of reimbursement for mileage beyond some specified figure (commonly 25-50 miles per day) and also payment for 'travelling time' beyond some specified figure (commonly about 2 hours per day) - so, in reality, I do not have to claim extra for 'travel' all that often - since most of my 'overheads' are covered by the figures 'averaged-in' to my hourly charge.

I'm sure that the situation varies a lot according to the nature of the work and the trade/profession concerned. In my world, one of the very first questions one almost invariably gets asked is about one's 'hourly rate', and if someone based in central London quoted a much higher figure than, say, a person based in rural Cornwall or Wales, they simply would not get any work!

Basically I have arrived at a 'London rate' that works for me and I don't see why that should be a problem.

If that rate is calculated 'reasonably' that's fair enough. Customers/clients in London will undoubtedly expect and accept a much higher rate than they would in some different places "because that's how it is" - but that doesn't stop me asking whether "that's how it should be", at least in some contexts.

Despite what you and others may think, I am not being awkward or argumentative for argument's sake but, rather, genuinely am interested to know the answer to the "Why?" question - since I suspect that, at least in some cases, the answer may be "because that'show it is"! As I've said, there are certainly situations in which the cost of services, and maybe goods, is justifiably appreciably higher in places like London - particularly when 'premises' are involved, but I'm far less convinced in some other contexts (trades/professions).

17 years ago I did a job for a well known "multinational professional services network, and one of the Big Four accounting organizations"..... they accepted the range of 5 different labour rates on the 8 offices without comment (one based on the branch providing on site accommodation FOC). Leeds, Bristol and Birmingham were the most expensive due to the distance and 2 overnight stays, the cheapest of course being the 2 branches most local to me.

The 'total' is obviously the most important bottom-line for a customer/client, but everything depends on how 'reasonably' your (differing) totals were calculated.

If you merely took the 'hourly rate' you would charge for work within walking distance if you lived in, say, rural Wales and added to it a genuine estimate of travelling costs and some reasonable amount of remuneration for 'travelling time' and 'being away from home time', then I think that would be fine, and fair to everyone. However, I suspect that a good few people in that position would charge a higher hourly rate for work in an 'expensive' place (like London), before adding on those legitimate 'addons' - solely because "rates are higher in London".

As a matter of interest, to help my understanding, if you lived in an expensive part of London and worked as a full-time in-house (no travelling) employee at a site within walking distance of your home, would you expect a higher hourly rate of pay than if you were in exactly the same situation, other than living in some very rural part of the UK? Similarly, what if you were self-employed and (largely as is the case for me these days, although not in the past), virtually all of your work was undertaken 'remotely' ('from home') - would you then feel that you should charge appreciably more if you were doing it from your home in central London than if your home were somewhere very rural and 'cheap'?

In other words, I suppose what I'm really asking is whether your 'London rates' are much higher than they would be elsewhere simply because you have added a genuine estimate of travel-related overheads etc., or is it at least partially because 'London is an expensive place'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Cmcb]

C'mon guys, stop arguing. Getting flashbacks to childhood when dad would come home drunk.

Hows this quote?