After some advice: Mild tingle from shower when in use

[TheGovernor]

Hi Skenk, no it's with 8 RCBO's with spare slots for growth.

The other two aren't fixed, I just didn't copy and paste his whole email, where he'd quite reasonably said anything else he finds will be chargeable, whereas BG are saying it's a fixed price...

 

[skenk]

Fair enough however I very much doubt that the BG quote will cover remedial works to circuits - I expect it will be a fixed price for the CU replacement and additional costs for remedial works will be hidden in the small print. Certainly with their 'homecare' packages the advertising suggests that cover is extensive but in reality the terms are full of exclusions.

Eg (dependent on the product purchased) taps are covered but not ceramic disc replacement; wiring repairs are covered but not for rubber or lead cable; decorative or specialist parts are not covered; damage caused by changes to the gas, electricity or water services are not covered etc etc (x35 pages of terms!)

Ideally full testing would be done before the CU is changed but this takes longer than doing it while changing the board and it could leave you with a bill for testing and the consumer unit unchanged if faults requiring significant remedial works are found. As such most quote for CU replacement and have different arrangements for dealing with faults found during the course of the works (including leaving faulty circuits unconnected to an RCD and issuing appropriate warning paperwork and exclusion note on the installation certificate, if a quote for repairs is refused).

At least BG tend to have extensive written terms (unlike some others) so at the very least it would be worth checking what they say before proceeding.

 

[flyingsparks]

.....(including leaving faulty circuits unconnected to an RCD and issuing appropriate warning paperwork and exclusion note on the installation certificate, if a quote for repairs is refused)..........

 

[skenk]

I'm putting that forward as a possibility of what could happen. Clearly it's not best-practice, it's quite a significant departure from the regs. I've never done it myself, but then I explain about testing beforehand and not proceeding further until/unless quote for required remedials has been accepted. I rarely do CU changes though and have lost some jobs because I couldn't guarantee a fixed price. In general I do give fixed quotes for almost all work because it gives 'peace of mind' to the client (see OP's comments!), maybe that's why I don't do many CU changes. I wouldn't be happy leaving an installation with CU I just installed without RCD protection where it should be, but replacing the CU (and in doing so making significant improvements to the installation) is I think preferable to making no improvements. I think this was discussed here before.

I suppose if there's nothing in BG's terms about it they could be playing the averages and just suck it up when they get a job that requires significant remedial work, (and they may have lower overheads in terms of cost of fleet, materials etc due to buying power), but I doubt it, because people with known problems would try-it-on.

 

[TheGovernor]

I'm putting that forward as a possibility of what could happen. Clearly it's not best-practice, it's quite a significant departure from the regs. I've never done it myself, but then I explain about testing beforehand and not proceeding further until/unless quote for required remedials has been accepted. I rarely do CU changes though and have lost some jobs because I couldn't guarantee a fixed price. In general I do give fixed quotes for almost all work because it gives 'peace of mind' to the client (see OP's comments!), maybe that's why I don't do many CU changes. I wouldn't be happy leaving an installation with CU I just installed without RCD protection where it should be, but replacing the CU (and in doing so making significant improvements to the installation) is I think preferable to making no improvements. I think this was discussed here before.

I suppose if there's nothing in BG's terms about it they could be playing the averages and just suck it up when they get a job that requires significant remedial work, (and they may have lower overheads in terms of cost of fleet, materials etc due to buying power), but I doubt it, because people with known problems would try-it-on.

Thanks for the thoughts, I'll see what I can see in the BG terms

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose if there's nothing in BG's terms about it they could be playing the averages and just suck it up when they get a job that requires significant remedial work, (and they may have lower overheads in terms of cost of fleet, materials etc due to buying power), but I doubt it, because people with known problems would try-it-on.

I would doubt it to. Although that approach is (implicitly or explicitly) taken in a good few walks of life, not only can it be exploited in the manner you suggest but, even if it isn't exploited, it means that those customers with straightforward jobs are 'subsidising' those with the more complex jobs. We obviously accept that concept (of cost-/risk-sharing) in relation to insurance, people probably aren't so keen on it in relation to the direct provision of a service.

Kind Regards, John