Uncertified consumer unit replacement

[echoes]

JohnW: Well yes, by dismantling and reassembling the CU, then I assume an EIC could be provided for the installation if the competent person was happy with the original design and adopted it as his own.

I was suggesting that as the OP has a PIR but no EIC, that wouldn't necessarily be a problem regarding LABC completion, again assuming that notification/completion was outstanding.

 

[JohnW2]

JohnW: Well yes, by dismantling and reassembling the CU, then I assume an EIC could be provided for the installation if the competent person was happy with the original design and adopted it as his own.

Indeed; that's what's been suggested, and I suppose one can't fault the logic, technically.

Maybe, then, some of those here will have to modify some of the responses they give. It seems quite common for a poster to say that he's going to replace a CU (or whatever) 'and then get an electrician to test and certify it', and commonly will get at least one reply along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "you cannot do it that way" - but, in view of the above, maybe they might need to re-think their answers a little?

I was suggesting that as the OP has a PIR but no EIC, that wouldn't necessarily be a problem regarding LABC completion, again assuming that notification/completion was outstanding.

Yes, I fully understand that, but the discussion has raised this other, rather interesting, more general issue!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[westie101]

To throw another "spanner" in!

We have a number of situations where CU's have been mounted on our meter boards, in discussion with LA's (at high level) it was agreed that if we were to remove and replace the CU (we have staff trained to do this) to change the meter board it is not notifiable and would be classed as like for like!

 

[EFLImpudence]

It seems quite common for a poster to say that he's going to replace a CU (or whatever) 'and then get an electrician to test and certify it', and commonly will get at least one reply along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "you cannot do it that way" - but, in view of the above, maybe they might need to re-think their answers a little?

I think the replies quoted are more for installations involving cable runs.

As far as them applying to DIY CU replacements, the exercise would be rather pointless considering the suggested solution.

 

[riveralt]

Maybe, then, some of those here will have to modify some of the responses they give. It seems quite common for a poster to say that he's going to replace a CU (or whatever) 'and then get an electrician to test and certify it', and commonly will get at least one reply along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "you cannot do it that way" - but, in view of the above, maybe they might need to re-think their answers a little?

In this post I think some people have tried to come up with solutions to help the OP - which is fair enough given his predicament - but not all of them will be members of a competent persons scheme.
Because if, like me, you are a member of such a scheme YOU are not allowed to certify other peoples work - nor I believe would my insurers support such actions.
I think the issue is more about whether the registered spark is prepared to take responsibility for the work or not.
In the case outlined above, I would not replace a Consumer Unit without conducting a full PIR first. I would not remove (4 screws) and replace same consumer unit because I am guaranteeing that CU - I would only replace it with my own purchased product.
I would however, conduct a PIR on the installation and report to the owner.

By the way the LABC's around my area of work will not accept a PIR - they require a EIC.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the replies quoted are more for installations involving cable runs. As far as them applying to DIY CU replacements, the exercise would be rather pointless considering the suggested solution.

Yes, quite probably pretty pointless - and I hasten to add that it wasn't me who suggested the solution in question!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[echoes]

Maybe, then, some of those here will have to modify some of the responses they give. It seems quite common for a poster to say that he's going to replace a CU (or whatever) 'and then get an electrician to test and certify it', and commonly will get at least one reply along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "you cannot do it that way" - but, in view of the above, maybe they might need to re-think their answers a little?

Well it seems that it could 'work that way' provided only that a competent-installer-electrician was willing, and it was practically possible to re-install. However I think such instances are few and far between. [EDIT: riveralt has illustrated the reasons] And I think that promoting this route would lead to an awful lot of electricians' wasted time and no certificate, unless the electrician the DIYer already had a working relationship - which is also given as common advice: 'involve your electrician early and agree what both will do'.

 

[JohnW2]

In this post I think some people have tried to come up with solutions to help the OP - which is fair enough given his predicament ....

Yes, I agree with that, and that what was suggested is probably a realistic/pragmatic solution in that particular situation.

... - but not all of them will be members of a competent persons scheme. Because if, like me, you are a member of such a scheme YOU are not allowed to certify other peoples work - nor I believe would my insurers support such actions.

To be fair to those who suggested the solution (not me!), I dont think there was any implication that they would be certifying anyone else's work - since it was suggested that it could be done in such a way that the work being certified was technically their own.

I think the issue is more about whether the registered spark is prepared to take responsibility for the work or not.
In the case outlined above, I would not replace a Consumer Unit without conducting a full PIR first. I would not remove (4 screws) and replace same consumer unit because I am guaranteeing that CU - I would only replace it with my own purchased product.

As I understand the proposal, the 're-installation' work would be undertaken in the context of a proper PIR. As for not being prepared to use a customer-supplied CU, that could be argued to be a bit petty. Indeed, I imagine it's quite common (even if silly) for electricians to be asked to installed customer-supplied items (we see a lot of posts which seem to imply that ), and I'm sure that in such cases the paperwork can be written so as to establish that the electrician is providing no guarantee for items (s)he did not supply.

Except in the particular situation of the OP, I'm certainly not advocating the solution that has been suggested - rather, as I'm sure you will realise, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate in pointing out the much wider implications that such a set of thought processes might have!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Well it seems that it could 'work that way' provided only that a competent-installer-electrician was willing, and it was practically possible to re-install. However I think such instances are few and far between. [EDIT: riveralt has illustrated the reasons] And I think that promoting this route would lead to an awful lot of electricians' wasted time and no certificate, unless the electrician the DIYer already had a working relationship - which is also given as common advice: 'involve your electrician early and agree what both will do'.

Yes, I agree with all that and, in case it wasn't obvious, have just pointed out in my response to riveralt that I've really just been trying to get people talking about the shortcomings of thinking about this as a potential general approach for DIYers.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

We have a number of situations where CU's have been mounted on our meter boards, in discussion with LA's (at high level) it was agreed that if we were to remove and replace the CU (we have staff trained to do this) to change the meter board it is not notifiable and would be classed as like for like!

I can't see how the local authority could possibly argue otherwise. Schedule 4, exempt works:

1. Work consisting of—

(a) replacing any fixed electrical equipment which does not include the provision of—

(i) any new fixed cabling, or

(ii) a consumer unit;

If you just disconnect, remove, then replace and reconnect, I can't see how that could be "provision," since it was already there in the first place. And even if that didn't cover it, there's:

(c) re-fixing or replacing enclosures of existing installation components, where the circuit protective measures are unaffected;

I'd say that's exactly what you're doing!

 

[riveralt]

As for not being prepared to use a customer-supplied CU, that could be argued to be a bit petty. Indeed, I imagine it's quite common (even if silly) for electricians to be asked to installed customer-supplied items (we see a lot of posts which seem to imply that ), and I'm sure that in such cases the paperwork can be written so as to establish that the electrician is providing no guarantee for items (s)he did not supply.

Not petty really - or are you playing devils advocate again?
The decision not to use customer supplied components is both a business decision and one, which I believe, is required by my scheme as part of the Work Quality Guarantee.
To try and wriggle out of this guarantee by using the customers supplied parts and drawing up the paperwork to exclude them from the WQG doesn't seem right to me and its not one I would consider.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Nope ebee - I was a proper mug and paid up after being given assurances that all the paperwork would be provided.

Some people just have natural "victim tendencies", don't they...

Anyway - if you're reading this, sparkybird, it's an example of why I will always criticise electricians who withhold certificates until they've received payment, and why I will always advise people that until they have the certificate in their hands the work is not finished, and you don't pay for an unfinished job.

 

[JohnW2]

Not petty really - or are you playing devils advocate again?

No, the Devil's Advocate is resting for a while!

The decision not to use customer supplied components is both a business decision and one, which I believe, is required by my scheme as part of the Work Quality Guarantee. To try and wriggle out of this guarantee by using the customers supplied parts and drawing up the paperwork to exclude them from the WQG doesn't seem right to me and its not one I would consider.

It's obviously your decision; I fully respect the position you choose to take - and I obviously don't know what obligations your scheme imposes on you.

However, in relation to virtually all trades, it is by no means uncommon for customers to supply some or all of the materials, for one reason or another - and I would regard it as total common sense, not 'wriggling', for the contract in such cases to reflect the fact that the contractor had no responsibility for materials which they had not supplied.

Furthermore, it surely must be an almost daily occurrence in relation to work which you do undertake for you to 're-use' components belonging to the customer which are already in place, without anyone even dreaming that you were thereby providing any guarantee in relation to those pre-exisiting components.

I can fully understand that you would not be happy to re-use something which you felt was not safe but I really don't think that is generally going to be the case in the sort of situations we're talking about, certainly not if the recently acquired components are of a reputable brand and origin, and have not been damaged.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Electrifying]

, but I would hope there would be 4 screws rather than 2 fixing the CU to the wall

I was getting confused with the cover, I think ha ha

 

[Electrifying]

I suppose ...get a registered electrician to re-install the CU. ... They could disconnect all circuits, run the necessary tests, re-connect circuits and then complete the I & T.

How does that differ from what they would (should) do in the name of a proper PIR?
Kind Regards, John.

A PIR is supposed to be non-intrusive - i.e. you're not supposed to go dismantling all the circuits etc.
Minimal dismantling - that's the difference.

I would never dismantle all the circuits from a CU - no matter how thorough the PIR was.