Best option going forward. Install cert.

[EFLImpudence]

The main bonding is different; that has to be part of the job.

The other things would be discovered during the CU change and can be dealt with acccordingly.

Shared neutral circuits can be connected to one MCB/RCBO.
Unsatisfactory Zs would be safer with RCDs/RCBO.
Metal light switches could be replaced with stock parts.
Unsatisfactory IR may be determined by a quick global earth leakage test.
Crumbling VIR is unlikely to be unexpected.

I am not saying that these things should not be discovered and rectified but all will be less dangerous with a new CU, presumably being changed to include RCD protection.
My query is that a virtual EICR be carried out and then everything put back and the CU changed, when, tomorrow, next week?

You said "I would hope a lot more of a decent electrician, and personally would not consider employing one whose pre-CU-change I&T was restricted to "ensuring that ADS will operate as intended"".
I assume that means at a prior time to determine if a new CU can be fitted.


Edit - just corrected typos.

 

[JohnW2]

The main bonding is different; that has to be part of the job.

I'm not quite sure why you say it is "different" - why is it not the same as everything else that "would be discovered ... and dealt with accordingly"?

The other things would be discovered during the CU change and can be dealt with acccordingly.

Indeed - but your Mrs Customer may not be able to afford to have these things dealy with as well as having the CU changed - so, if she were told in advance that these things needed to be done, she might opt for those instead of the CU change.

My query is that a virtual EICR be carried out and then everything put back and the CU changed, when, tomorrow, next week?

I'm not sure I understand. It could, if one wished, be done on the day of the proposed CU change, with an understanding that if it revealed things which "needed to be done" and/or which might complicate the CU change, that this would be discussed with the customer in order to see if they wanted the CU change to proceed and/or wanted to have the additional work done.

You said "I would hope a lot more of a decent electrician, and personally would not consider employing one whose pre-CU-change I&T was restricted to "ensuring that ADS will operate as intended"". I assume that means at a prior time to determine if a new CU can be fitted.

Literally 'a prior time', yes - but, as above, there's no reason why it could not be done on the day of the proposed CU change.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not quite sure why you say it is "different" - why is it not the same as everything else that "would be discovered ... and dealt with accordingly"?

...because the main bonding must be satisfactory so it will be included in a CU change.

Indeed - but your Mrs Customer may not be able to afford to have these things dealy with as well as having the CU changed - so, if she were told in advance that these things needed to be done, she might opt for those instead of the CU change.

In my experience people don't work like that.

I'm not sure I understand. It could, if one wished, be done on the day of the proposed CU change, with an understanding that if it revealed things which "needed to be done" and/or which might complicate the CU change, that this would be discussed with the customer in order to see if they wanted the CU change to proceed and/or wanted to have the additional work done.

I don't think they do complicate a CU change. Maybe I have been lucky.
I used to charge to allow for a little remedial work; not much but on the swings and roundabouts principle it worked out alright.

From what has been previously written, I got the idea that the inspection was so that the electrician could then decide not to change a CU unless all the remedial work was agreed. That is - charging for an EICR and then not fitting the new CU if he was not happy.

Literally 'a prior time', yes - but, as above, there's no reason why it could not be done on the day of the proposed CU change.

That's not a prior time then, is it? That is during the process of dismantling and replacement - and what I used to do.


It may not have been what you had in mind at all, but I have read people saying that they do, and charge for, an EICR and then deduct the cost from an eventual CU change. This seems totally impractical to me and I can't see how it works other than either:
a job the customer did not want but has to pay for without a CU change, or
two jobs for the price of one.

 

[JohnW2]

...because the main bonding must be satisfactory so it will be included in a CU change.

I still don't really understand why main bonding "must be satisfactory" in order to undertake a CU change, whereas other things (circuits with excessive Zs, inadequate earth, IR problems etc.) apparently don't.

I don't think they do complicate a CU change.

I suppose it depends on what one counts as 'complicating'.

From what has been previously written, I got the idea that the inspection was so that the electrician could then decide not to change a CU unless all the remedial work was agreed. That is - charging for an EICR and then not fitting the new CU if he was not happy.

Do I take it that you are implying 'work generation'? I could sympathise with an electrician who would not be happy to re-energise (with a new CU) circuits which were in some way 'unsatisfactory', and therefore was effectively saying that he/she would not undertake a CU change without an EICR first being done, and any consequent remedial work undertaken - maybe per what you go on to say ...

It may not have been what you had in mind at all, but I have read people saying that they do, and charge for, an EICR and then deduct the cost from an eventual CU change. This seems totally impractical to me and I can't see how it works ...

I think that it could 'work' if the process was explained to the customer and she/he agreed to that approach.

There are some similarities in healthcare. If one is admitted to hospital for planned elective surgery (c.f. a CU change), one first undergoes a full examination and a series of 'pre-op' investigations (X-rays, blood tests, ECG etc.) - a medical version of "I&T", or an EICR. If those processes reveal something important, that will be dealt with, if necessary postponing or even cancelling the planned surgery - and similarly if the 'I&T' reveals something which would impact upon or complicate the planned surgery or render that surgery less safe.

If the patient said they wanted the surgery (CU change), but were not prepared to first undergo the examination and investigations ("I&T"/EICR), they would almost certainly be denied the surgery. If it were in the private sector, if they wanted to have the surgery, they would have to pay for the pre-requisites, even if, as result of them, the surgery didn't happen.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I still don't really understand why main bonding "must be satisfactory" in order to undertake a CU change, whereas other things (circuits with excessive Zs, inadequate earth, IR problems etc.) apparently don't.

Isn't it a regulation that bonding must be satisfactory and to latest requirements before other work shall be undertaken?

Do I take it that you are implying 'work generation'?

Not exactly, more like being paid for something not asked for by the customer and then refusing to do what was actually wanted.

I could sympathise with an electrician who would not be happy to re-energise (with a new CU) circuits which were in some way 'unsatisfactory', and therefore was effectively saying that he/she would not undertake a CU change without an EICR first being done, and any consequent remedial work undertaken - maybe per what you go on to say ...

[
I disagree. Whatever it is will be better - less dangerous with the new CU with RCDs presumably where there was none - except, of course if a circuit causes aN RCD to trip. It will have to be without an RCD until rectified - still no worse than before.

I think that it could 'work' if the process was explained to the customer and she/he agreed to that approach.

...but we have established that you did not mean what I thought by prior I&T (i.e. not prior).
It is not necessary to write 'he/she' and 'she/he'. Actresses like to be called actors so I'm sure they and electriciannes will be happy with 'he'.

There are some similarities in healthcare. If one is admitted to hospital for planned elective surgery (c.f. a CU change), one first undergoes a full examination and a series of 'pre-op' investigations (X-rays, blood tests, ECG etc.) - a medical version of "I&T", or an EICR. If those processes reveal something important, that will be dealt with, if necessary postponing or even cancelling the planned surgery - and similarly if the 'I&T' reveals something which would impact upon or complicate the planned surgery or render that surgery less safe.
If the patient said they wanted the surgery (CU change), but were not prepared to first undergo the examination and investigations ("I&T"/EICR), they would almost certainly be denied the surgery. If it were in the private sector, if they wanted to have the surgery, they would have to pay for the pre-requisites, even if, as result of them, the surgery didn't happen.

No, not similar. What does your patient do if they can't afford both?


They have changed it now (unless I dreamed it) but one of the Best Practice Guides originally stated that electricians should not install new CUs if the lighting circuit did not have a CPC; meaning customer must have lighting rewired before the customer can have new CU - Ludicrous

 

[ericmark]

When Part P first started my son was a sole trader, he did work in Liverpool, the LABC inspector was really helpful, could not have asked for better, Chester LABC inspector was less helpful, but still OK, very reasonable, Flintshire however were really poor, getting anything passed was a problem, they were really jobs worth guys. So it is all down to his local building inspector, he may be really helpful, or he could be a jobs worth. There is however only one way to find out, and you can't untell them something. So you could get an EICR done and get a completion certificate no problem, or he could insist all chases are exposed again.

Flintshire really does not like retrospective, they take the attitude if we grant it, then others will try, so even when a caravan has been on a site for 25 years, they will still try to have it crushed, since the woman was 70 and new papers got involved they have said she can stay, but as soon as she dies, or goes into a home, it is to be removed.

Other councils are not so forceful.

So the options are, tell council and do what they say, and get the certificates to be able to sell it as rewired, or accept you can't really sell house until rewired again.

If I was a LABC inspector I would not be impressed by a guy who says I have no test equipment I have just taken a chance that it's OK. So I would say get an EICR done, select a large well known firm in the area to do it, not a sole trader, you want to make a show that your a responsible person and have taken no chances. Then armed with the glowing EICR go to LABC and say sorry made a mistake, can you issue retrospective registration please.

It is permitted where there is danger, to do work then register, so if for example working on my car on Saturday morning I smashed the CU in garage, I can go to B&Q buy a new one, fit it, and tell council on Monday what I have done. But that could not really cover a full rewire.

 

[ericmark]

I have often thought and sometimes said that I have never been sure about this apparently required I&T before changing a CU.

Not least because of the disconnection and reconnection of circuits which have worked satisfactorily for years when it may then be decided that for some reason a new CU cannot be fitted.

I have never understood how you manage to persuade Mrs.Customer to pay for a virtual EIC when it is then decided by the electrician that he cannot do the change or it took twice as long as it should have.

To test one has to turn off power, if the test shows a fault, then you should not re-energise, so in theory it does not matter if tested before or after a CU change, if there's a fault, you can't re-energise until corrected.

The difference is before the CU change the customer can re-energise after you leave, but after he can't because the RCD will trip, so in real life it's a lot better to know of faults where the power can be switched back on and freezer emptied so you have time required.

But if you test, and find a fault which you can't correct, then we have to leave the home inhabitable, so be it a temporary under the consumer unit and extension lead, or booking them into a hotel, we have the same problem after testing be it before or after the CU change.

I have seen some of the work done when it is found there are borrowed neutrals on lighting circuits, I have seen where both lighting MCB's have been fed by same RCD, OK it stops it tripping, but you still have a borrowed neutral, put them both on same MCB yes that's allowed, but two MCB's no way.

Likely originally only one lighting circuit anyway, and who ever split them was likely unaware he had created a borrowed neutral situation, so still wrong, but one can understand how it has happened, but once found, what then, so if you find a borrowed neutral with a pre-CU change test, then what? You can't turn lights back on until corrected, so how does knowing the fault help?

 

[crystal ball]

When Part P first started my son was a sole trader, he did work in Liverpool, the LABC inspector was really helpful, could not have asked for better, Chester LABC inspector was less helpful, but still OK, very reasonable, Flintshire however were really poor, getting anything passed was a problem, they were really jobs worth guys. So it is all down to his local building inspector, he may be really helpful, or he could be a jobs worth. There is however only one way to find out, and you can't untell them something. So you could get an EICR done and get a completion certificate no problem, or he could insist all chases are exposed again.

Flintshire really does not like retrospective, they take the attitude if we grant it, then others will try, so even when a caravan has been on a site for 25 years, they will still try to have it crushed, since the woman was 70 and new papers got involved they have said she can stay, but as soon as she dies, or goes into a home, it is to be removed.

Other councils are not so forceful.

So the options are, tell council and do what they say, and get the certificates to be able to sell it as rewired, or accept you can't really sell house until rewired again.

If I was a LABC inspector I would not be impressed by a guy who says I have no test equipment I have just taken a chance that it's OK. So I would say get an EICR done, select a large well known firm in the area to do it, not a sole trader, you want to make a show that your a responsible person and have taken no chances. Then armed with the glowing EICR go to LABC and say sorry made a mistake, can you issue retrospective registration please.

It is permitted where there is danger, to do work then register, so if for example working on my car on Saturday morning I smashed the CU in garage, I can go to B&Q buy a new one, fit it, and tell council on Monday what I have done. But that could not really cover a full rewire.

Why is using a large well known firm better than a sole trader, I have followed large firm EICRs in schools and found them seriously wanting, maybe you mean a reputable electrician

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I (and I imagine also secure) are not talking about 'certifying' - he said that I&T would/should be undertaken prior to a CU change and I personally think that should involve more than confirming that ADS will work with the new "devices".

Exactly what would you have the electrician do, and how?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think that it could 'work' if the process was explained to the customer and she/he agreed to that approach.

It is not necessary to write 'he/she' and 'she/he'. Actresses like to be called actors so I'm sure they and electriciannes will be happy with 'he'.

I think that it could 'work' if the process was explained to the customer and they agreed to that approach.

 

[JohnW2]

Isn't it a regulation that bonding must be satisfactory and to latest requirements before other work shall be undertaken?

Is it? You may be right, but I can't thi nk of what regulation that would be. Can you enlighten me?

Not exactly, more like being paid for something not asked for by the customer and then refusing to do what was actually wanted.

Well, it may not have been something the customer initially wanted or 'asked for', but that approach would (should) only be undertaken if it was discussed with the customer who then agreed to that approach - and they would be free not not agree.

It's a concept which exists in many fields, even ones about as far from electrical work as they could be. Clients come to me and 'ask for' a certain task to be undertaken. Quite often, I will first have to undertake preliminary work (c.f. "I&T"!) to ascertain whether what they 'want' is feasible and practicable, and whether there are factors which mean that the task they want undertaken would be particularly difficult (hence costly) and/or if it looked as if the end-point might not (or would not) necessarily be as complete or decisive as they would want.

That preliminary work can be quite extensive and time-consuming, so I have to charge for it - and nearly all clients understand this and are prepared to pay for it, in the knowledge that the result of the preliminary work might be that the task they actually 'asked' to be undertaken doesn't actually happen. As with your mention of 'refunding' the cost of an EICR if a subsequent CU change is undertaken, if I do proceed to the 'asked for' task, the charge for that task will usually then be less than if it had been done alone, since there will be overlap with the preliminary work.

Similarly for my barrister daughter. Clients come to her saying that 'we want to take this case to court'. The first thing she usually does is produces a written 'Advice' (for which the client accepts that they have to pay quite a lot!) - and the result of that "Advice" is quite often that what the client 'asked for' does not happen.

I disagree. Whatever it is will be better - less dangerous with the new CU with RCDs presumably where there was none - except, of course if a circuit causes aN RCD to trip. It will have to be without an RCD until rectified - still no worse than before.

Yes, it would be 'less dangerous' in some respects, but not necessarily others. I would imagine that a significant number of people share the view that eric has just expressed - that they feel that they should not (or 'must not') re-energise a circuit once they become aware of a fault on it (and, as eric has said, that's really true whether or not one is undertaking a CU change).

No, not similar. What does your patient do if they can't afford both?

In the private sector, they would surely have to go without both? I cannot believe that any surgeon (or anaesthetist) would agree to surgery being undertaken without what they regarded as necessary 'prior' procedures being undertaken. I suppose one way of looking at it is that they do not regard the two things as separable - the 'necessary prior procedures' being an inseparable part of the surgery.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

It absolutely is a Regulation that Earthing and bonding must be adequate before carrying out any work as these are necessary for the protective measure ADS.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is it? You may be right, but I can't thi nk of what regulation that would be. Can you enlighten me?

132.16.


I do not think it worth discussing your other points as I have explained that your view about prior inspection is not what I was thinking of and have read from others who have stated similar things. Electrical work is NOT like legal or medical services where people expect to pay exorbitant amounts or do without.
If we received the same rate as barristers perhaps we would repair faults for no extra money.

The fitting of a new CU is not (apart from RCDs tripping) dependent on the existing installation.

What if one does as you (but not others) suggest and test every circuit as it is disconnected from the old CU and not until the final one (Sod's law) is tested is a fault found. Would you then refuse to fit the new CU and reconnect all the circuits to the old if the customer did not agree to the repairs - "because it all worked before".
If so, how do you get the customer to pay for your, say, couple or three hours for what appears to be nothing done and refusal to do what they wanted.

Is it not better to fit the new CU and modify it to accommodate the "fault"?
I, of course, am not talking about anything obviously dangerous - perhaps like the recent post; an open circuit CPC where a 20A MCB can be fitted and left to the customer to decide to have it rectified or not.

 

[JohnW2]

132.16.

That's very odd wording, and I wonder if it actually does apply to a CU change? It says that bonding and earthing should be adequate "if necessary for the protective measure applied for the safety of the addition or alteration". Is bonding, or even earthing, necessary 'for the safety' of a new CU?

I do not think it worth discussing your other points as I have explained that your view about prior inspection is not what I was thinking of and have read from others who have stated similar things. Electrical work is NOT like legal or medical services where people expect to pay exorbitant amounts or do without.

It not only legal or medical services, nor necessarily about exorbitant amounts. A member of my family has an aged car which recently needed some fairly major work done. The garage chap said that he would just do the job (for a good few hundred quid) if that was what was wanted. However, I would say very reasonably/decently, he pointed out that the age of the car was such that it could well have other problems (or developing problems) that could result in appreciable further expense in the foreseeable future, and which might even complicate (or be complicated by) the job he had been asked to do. He therefore suggested (and my relative agreed) that he could first undertake a thorough inspection of the vehicle (for around £50 if I recall) and would then immediately proceed to do the work that had been requested 'if all was well' (and would otherwise discuss the situation).

What if one does as you (but not others) suggest and test every circuit as it is disconnected from the old CU and not until the final one (Sod's law) is tested is a fault found. Would you then refuse to fit the new CU and reconnect all the circuits to the old if the customer did not agree to the repairs ...

As I said, if one is going to take that approach, one has to do so with the knowledge and consent of the customer - i.e they agree to pay for the I&T and then, when advised of the results of the I&T, decide whether or not they want to remedial work undertaken and the CU changed. If you discovered potentially dangerous faults, eric (and others of a like mind) might be hesitant to reconnect circuits with such faults, even to the old CU - but that's a slightly different issue.

Is it not better to fit the new CU and modify it to accommodate the "fault"? I, of course, am not talking about anything obviously dangerous - perhaps like the recent post; an open circuit CPC where a 20A MCB can be fitted and left to the customer to decide to have it rectified or not.

In that case, it was 'fortunate' that the CPC break was on a ring circuit. Had it been a radial, with some sockets not having a connection to 'earth', one would presumably have had to either find and rectify the fault or else not re-energise the circuit?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ThrottleHappy]

I can see a lot of debates here, easy to see how new regs are so hard to follow sometimes.

I have had an ecir done prior to pulling all this out. The sparky is going to inspect and cert the install and we have agreed on if there is any rectification work he will allow me to sort it myself if hes happy wih what is already done. Upstairs is fully platered but downstairs is still chased and capped. Plus i took loads of pictures.

Now just to clarify, is it for me to notify building control or will he do that?

I know when we had the gas done it just turned up in the post. He did it for us.