dirty tricks

[Paul_C]

True, but (without going and looking it up again), there's mention in places along the lines of "as long as protective measures aren't affected".

There's the key point - It's mentioned only "in places." It's not a general requirement for all work. To summarize the key point on that issue from the other thread, the exemption in 1(c) for re-fixing or replacing an enclosure says that it's on condition that the circuit protective measures are unaffected and the exemption in 1(d) for providing mechanical protection is conditional upon circuit protective measures and current-carrying capacity of the cables being unaffected. But the exemption in 1(a) for replacing any fixed electrical equipment has no such condition attached - The only conditions in 1(a) are that the replacement does not involve the provision of a consumer unit or the provision of any new fixed cabling.

So it doesn't matter if a replacement RCD, MCB, RCBO, or fuse has different characteristics - It's not notifiable by way of the exemption in 1(a).

Of course, I agree that it's not a good idea for somebody to replace with a different type of device without understanding what he's doing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

just a quicky can you fit a consumer unit with out part p and be member of registered body?

Yes, but ...

Actually no - fitting a consumer unit and not complying with Part P would be unlawful.

 

[SimonH2]

just a quicky can you fit a consumer unit with out part p and be member of registered body?

Yes, but ...

Actually no - fitting a consumer unit and not complying with Part P would be unlawful.

In the context of the original question, "without part p" I take as being "someone with a part p ticket" (which most of us know doesn't actually exist). In that context, the answer I gave is correct - anyone can fit a CU, but it's notifiable and will probably cost more in LABC fees than it would to get someone in to do it*.

* Unless that someone is one of the cowboys a colleague at work had a quote from. While quoting for a new bathroom, they added "it's illegal do this without you fitting a new consumer unit, we can do that for you for an extra £500". He asked my opinion if the quote was reasonable, I won't repeat what I suggested he tell them

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In the context of the original question, "without part p" I take as being "someone with a part p ticket" (which most of us know doesn't actually exist).

Then help those who don't to remedy their ignorance by not joining in and by at all times replying on the basis that Part P is not an exam, it is not a qualification, it is not a professional status, it is a part of the Building Regulations and that failing to comply with it is unlawful.

In that context, the answer I gave is correct

The context was incorrect, so any answer framed within it will likewise be incorrect.

anyone can fit a CU, but it's notifiable and will probably cost more in LABC fees than it would to get someone in to do it*.

And that sort of thing furthers the other incorrect belief that somehow Part P is to to do with notification.

* Unless that someone is one of the cowboys a colleague at work had a quote from. While quoting for a new bathroom, they added "it's illegal do this without you fitting a new consumer unit, we can do that for you for an extra £500". He asked my opinion if the quote was reasonable, I won't repeat what I suggested he tell them

I can guess.

What you should have done was to ask him to get them to put that in writing - i.e. a breakdown of the work required and the reasons for it.

Unlikely they'd have fallen for it, but not impossible, and Trading Standards might have been quite interested in a claim from them that a new CU was required by law.

 

[SimonH2]

* Unless that someone is one of the cowboys a colleague at work had a quote from. While quoting for a new bathroom, they added "it's illegal do this without you fitting a new consumer unit, we can do that for you for an extra £500". He asked my opinion if the quote was reasonable, I won't repeat what I suggested he tell them

I can guess.

What you should have done was to ask him to get them to put that in writing - i.e. a breakdown of the work required and the reasons for it.

Unlikely they'd have fallen for it, but not impossible, and Trading Standards might have been quite interested in a claim from them that a new CU was required by law.

Oh I doubt they'd have been bothered. I think it's fairly obvious where their "reasoning" would lie ...

They are plumbers, kitchen and bathroom fitters etc. They'll know that "there's some regs regarding electrics" and know that "CU with RCD meets regs", and almost certainly oblivious to any other means of meeting regs. So they'll just automatically quote a fixed price for a CU replacement and sub it out.

I've met one of the partners there - generally quite helpful, and also handy as they have a plumbing counter in town which is within walking distance. But I had them give me a quote for a boiler replacement - and even if the price hadn't been somewhat more than I expected I'd not have gone with them. When it came to flue location, he was very much "it is going to go there", no scope for discussion, and he just couldn't understand why I'd object to a load of flue and plume diversion pipe stuck on the outside of the building.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh I doubt they'd have been bothered. I think it's fairly obvious where their "reasoning" would lie ...

They are plumbers, kitchen and bathroom fitters etc. They'll know that "there's some regs regarding electrics" and know that "CU with RCD meets regs", and almost certainly oblivious to any other means of meeting regs. So they'll just automatically quote a fixed price for a CU replacement and sub it out.

I would have kicked up an almighty fuss about that.

Telling customers lies in order to get paid for things which are not needed is an offence.

And if they, or the bathroom company, use the excuse that the people they sub to can't be expected to know what the law says then you can add contravention of the CD&M regs to the mix.

I've met one of the partners there - generally quite helpful,

You obviously have a different idea to me of what "helpful" means.

IMO defrauding their customers disqualifies them.

 

[SimonH2]

Telling customers lies in order to get paid for things which are not needed is an offence.

And if they, or the bathroom company, use the excuse that the people they sub to can't be expected to know what the law says then you can add contravention of the CD&M regs to the mix.

To be honest, it's about the level of knowledge I've come to expect from that part of the industry. Perhaps I'm being too generous, but I don't believe it's a deliberate lie, just ignorance of the intricacies of "complicated electrickery regs". They are "half right" in as much as that's one (and the simplest) method of compliance - even I know there's another method, but only because my friendly spark told me when I was having a PIR done in the flat and he picked up the lack of cross bonding in the bathroom with circuits not RCD protected.
As it is, there was previous work done (installation of an Aquability show cubicle with both shower and waste pumps), and a bonding cable around all the pipes, radiators, and light circuit.

As to whether £500 for a CU change is reasonable, well I'm less generous about that

You obviously have a different idea to me of what "helpful" means.

I've used their counter a few times and found them quite helpful - both with general advice, and when I've found myself short of a few fittings mid job. I get the impression they do know about plumbing !

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To be honest, it's about the level of knowledge I've come to expect from that part of the industry.

That you expect them to be criminals does not lessen their criminality.

Perhaps I'm being too generous, but I don't believe it's a deliberate lie, just ignorance of the intricacies of "complicated electrickery regs".

It doesn't matter how you dress it up:

While quoting for a new bathroom, they added "it's illegal do this without you fitting a new consumer unit"

is 100% unacceptable.

They are "half right"

No they are not.

I've used their counter a few times and found them quite helpful - both with general advice, and when I've found myself short of a few fittings mid job. I get the impression they do know about plumbing !

Then perhaps they should have the good sense and decency to stop sending liars, cheats, charlatans, thieves and ignorami to their customers.

 

[SimonH2]

OK then, when doing electrical work in a bathroom (I'll admit I've omitted the mention it includes a shower pump), what must be done to comply with the required regulations ? Is replacing the existing non-RCD fuse board with an RCD protected CU one of the methods for compliance with regs ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is replacing the existing non-RCD fuse board with an RCD protected CU one of the methods for compliance with regs ?

You could install a single RCD on the circuit concerned or

an RCD FCU for the appliances or wiring fitted.

The shower pump does not have to be in the bathroom.

 

[SimonH2]

You could install a single RCD on the circuit concerned or

Circuits. That is an option they offered - at a price. Of course when it's an old fuseboard then adding RCDs means an additional enclosure.

an RCD FCU for the appliances or wiring fitted.

Again, the circuit being added isn't the only one involved.

The shower pump does not have to be in the bathroom.

But is more work - and hence cost.

But you agree that something has to be done - and you've missed one option. So they fitters were half correct in stating that they couldn't do nothing. They were not correct in stating that fitting a CU (or separate RCDs) is the only option.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But you agree that something has to be done

I suppose - New work must be RCD protected.

and you've missed one option.

What was that?

So they fitters were half correct in stating that they couldn't do nothing.

Yes, but it would all be part of the job,

They were not correct in stating that fitting a CU (or separate RCDs) is the only option.

Not correct in saying it is illegal NOT to have a new CU. That's just lying or ignorance.

I don't know what exactly the job was but 'a new bathroom' could be fitted without altering the electrics.

I suppose extra lights were wanted and, as you said, a shower pump - anything else?
These could easily be protected by the methods I mentioned - and could even be on the same circuit.

Obviously if a jacuzzi was required it may be different.

 

[ebee]

What they should have said was.

Under Part P we have to make reasonable provision for safety.
Even without Part P then we should do so anyway.
The easiest way to comply is to follow our wiring regs.
There are a few different alternatives .
Probably the most expensive is to change the consumer unit, however due to other considerations it may well be the most prudent action in the long term and should be considered as a possible best solution.

 

[Paul_C]

OK then, when doing electrical work in a bathroom (I'll admit I've omitted the mention it includes a shower pump), what must be done to comply with the required regulations ?

All that must be done, in the legal sense, is to make reasonable provision "in order to protect the safety of persons operating, maintaining or altering the installation from fire or injury." Absent any specific case law which has set a precedent as to what specific requirements that might entail, it's very much open to interpretation.

But what it most certainly does not mean, contrary to what a lot in the electrical industry seem to think, is that it must comply fully with every last detail of the current version of BS7671. For example: *

New work must be RCD protected.

Must? According to BS7671, yes. But legally speaking? I would say no. An installation done today without adding RCD protection will be just as "reasonably safe" as one done 4 years ago without it. Even a PIR carried out to the current version of BS7671 today would flag that only as a code 4 (or whatever equivalent is replacing that). I see this as major problem in the electrical installation industry, and in those trades which are also taking requirements of BS7671 and passing them off as being legal requirements.

* Not intending to pick on you personally EFLI, just using that as a convenient example.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Must? According to BS7671, yes. But legally speaking? I would say no.

I'm sure you would.

But that's because you see no need for people, even those acting in a professional capacity and charging money for their services, to comply with the law and to choose working to the current edition of the Wiring Regulations as their method of compliance.