tests for replacing consumer unit

[ban-all-sheds]

am i correct by thinking every circuit has been changed so you are responsible for all the circuits which would involve testing all the circuits.

Testing them, yes, to make sure that nothing untoward is going to happen, but you don't become responsible for them. How can you when you didn't install them? You've got no idea what's there.

You can do a PIR for the existing installation, you cannot issue an EIC for it. But you do have to issue an EIC for the CU replacement.

i've changed my own for the niceic to come and inspect but i phoned building control and they said it was minor works,

Well he's a tw@, isn't he.

i found this hard to believe but he insisted. i got taught it was notifiable

It is notifiable, but I don't know why you needed to ask him - it's spelled out in black and white in the Building Regulations.

And anyway the two are not related, even if he had been right about it being minor works. Adding a socket in a kitchen is Minor Works, but it's notifiable.

that is what i thought, maybe my building control officer is pretty easy going then.

Which doesn't help you if you actually want to comply with the law. Saying, when you sell the house in the future, "No I don't have a Building Regulations Completion Certificate because they told me it wasn't notifiable" may not work...

would you test every circuit as well. i did the electrical installation certificate and filled out all the results for every circuit but don't want to have to do that every time if it doesn't need to be done

So how did you fill in the Schedule of Inspections on the EIC for the existing circuits?

a consumer board isnt really as straight forward as it could be then really.

 

[Pensdown]

am i correct by thinking every circuit has been changed so you are responsible for all the circuits which would involve testing all the circuits.

Testing them, yes, to make sure that nothing untoward is going to happen, but you don't become responsible for them. How can you when you didn't install them? You've got no idea what's there.

That's true as long as the new circuit protective device is of the same type or better than the one it replaced. However, if for example a B type MCB is changed for a C type then he would become responsible for that circuit.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Depends what you mean by "responsible". Don't see how he can become responsible for installation non-compliances. Or if it was already, but non-obviously, on a fuse or breaker that was too big.

 

[Pensdown]

Before a C type could be fitted to replace a B the circuit design would need to be re-calculated to ensure it was suitable. Therefore the designer becomes responsible for ensuring that it is.

If there are existing non-compliances they need to be considered by the designer and they may prohibit the changes.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What about non-compliances which are nothing to do with the change in breaker type, and which don't show up on a test?

e.g. a cable has a buried repair consisting of an undersized section. R1+R2 check out OK, so the breaker gets swapped to a C. Some time later the cable catches fire, which it would have done with the original Type B anyway.

What responsibility does the guy who tested it and swapped the breaker have?

e.g. a 2.5mm ring final on a 30A rewirable. The ring checks out OK. R1+R2 is OK. r1+r2 is OK. Every socket checks out OK. But under one of the floors the cable runs for 5m tie-wrapped to a CH pipe. The electrician replaces the CU, and puts the ring on a B32.

Sometime later there is a fire.

What responsibility does the electrician have?

 

[Pensdown]

I don't know what would happen under those circumstances. I would have thought that if a slower disconnection time could be proved to have contributed then the sparks/designer would be USWAP....but with mitigating circumstances?

However, because most competent sparks get a good feel for what could be hidden well before the test kit leaves the van your scenario is unlikely to happen. If they suspected anything untoward they would not change it.

The regs are very clear on alterations and additions and they clearly lay the responsibility with the designer/installer.

 

[benphillips]

i phoned him because it was my first job and not registered yet and told him i was notifing him i was undertaking the work for the niceic inspection and he told me there was no need to inform him for a cu change. i tested the circuits by going to the roses, sockets etc and doing my tests there and my ir tests. they all complied so i carried out the work. if one circuit would have failed would i not need to repair that before/whilst do the cu unit?

ben

 

[benphillips]

my eic has 2 parts to it, a resuls table as in the schedule of tests cerificate which i did as well just to be sure

 

[Spark123]

Should have a Electrical Installation Certificate (1 signatory of 3 signatory), Schedule of Inspections and a Schedule of Test results.

 

[benphillips]

sorry thats what i meant on my eic it has a schedule of inspection and ive done as survey schedule and test reports. the certificated are ethos as i haven't got any from niceic yet, just got them from a wholesaler. they cover the same things tho

ben

 

[FingRinal]

The responsibilities assumed when undertaking a CU change have never been adequately explained by any authoratitive source. It's been left to 'damned if you do, unemployed if you don't'.

The bottom line is to not leave the installation in a worse condition than before. Changing an old, damaged and dangerous board with a new RCD protected board can't (hopefully) ever be viewed as backward step. It seems a bit daft to view no cpc on switch drops the same as no cpc on socket finals. Garages don't refuse to change your tyres if your brakes are shot - or vice versa. And you're not expected to bring your car up to the current spec. of the manufacturer and European standards every time it is serviced.

A PIR should be carried out before changing a CU but I'm not so sure if this should be as in-depth and detailed as a stand-alone PIR. If it was, a half day job could turn into a day and a half.

There has to be a balance as to what is regarded as reasonable not just for the electrician but for poor old dear who is having to eke her state pension as it is. It's fine for all the IET, BSI, Government fat cats to pontificate but I don't see why everyone else should have to pay for their high principles.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fortunately, what you sign says things like "having exercised reasonable skill and care" and "to the best of my knowledge and belief".

So as long as you are happy that you can show that your decisions and actions were reasonable, and made on the basis of what it was reasonable for you to be able to find out, you shouldn't have any worries.