Best option going forward. Install cert.

[JohnW2]

No, I didn't say it was the only one necessary. I said I thought it was a regulation that it should be brought up to date; i.e. not 'not retrospective'.

Well, the regulation we're talking about doesn't explicitly say whether is is talking 'brought up to date' or 'not retrospective'.. It nearly says that earthing and bonding "shall be adequate", without any indication of what criteria of 'adequacy are to be applied'.

If you think it is saying (or intended to be saying) 'brought up to date' (aka not 'not retrospective') does that mean that, come next month, you would feel that you must not replace a CU in a TN installation without also installing an earth rod?

This all started because, in response to my suggestion that potentially dangerous faults should be sought (and, if necessary, rectified) before a CU change was undertaken, you wrote ...

The main bonding is different; that has to be part of the job. .... I am not saying that these things [a list of other defects] should not be discovered and rectified but all will be less dangerous with a new CU, presumably being changed to include RCD protection.

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

Even if we were to assume that 132.16 does mean that earthing and bonding have to be (if necessary) 'brought up to current standards' before any work is undertaken on the installation, my personal view as to what really ought to happen still goes appreciably beyond that - but I haven't got a clue as what common practice is amongst electricians.

What surprises me a bit is that this has been just a dialogue between two of us. Over the years, many an electrician has expressed (here and elsewhere) essentially the same view I have been representing (i.e. that "I&T" should precede a CU change), but none of them have shown themselves in this discussion - so I am left uncertain as to whether I am 'out on a limb' in terms of my expectations of what an electrician would/should do!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Over the years, many an electrician has expressed (here and elsewhere) essentially the same view I have been representing (i.e. that "I&T" should precede a CU change),

Yes, all I said and keep saying is:

Some of them write as if they go and do an EICR prior to the CU change, charge for this and refund if CU change is done. I am sure they mean at a different time (i.e. a different day) - otherwise why would they charge and then refund. I have often queried how this is economical, for them or the customer.

You stated you agreed with this view - as I had in my mind, but then it turned out you did not mean that, but meant at the same time as the CU change but obviously first, i.e. whilst dismantling. This is what I (used to) do. It seems common sense.
Refusal to change the CU after this means the old one has to be reconnected meaning the same amount of work has been done (as fitting the new one).

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, all I said and keep saying is: Some of them write as if they go and do an EICR prior to the CU change, charge for this and refund if CU change is done. I am sure they mean at a different time (i.e. a different day) - otherwise why would they charge and then refund.

I think you might be over-interpreting 'refund' - they might well simply be talking about a 'deduction' from the total they charge. It is not (in my experience) uncommon for one to be charged a 'call-out charge' or an 'inspection fee' for looking at something to see if it is repairable, or to undertake investigations to ascertain whether a job is feasible, but then to waive that charge if they 'get the job' (to repair, or whatever).

As I implied, it even applies to my work. I will charge for undertaking a 'feasibility' study, to ascertain whether what a client has asked for is realistically do-able (and likely to achieve what they want), but will usually (partially or completely) waive that charge if I go on to "do the job proper".

In all those situations, one does not usually 'charge and then refund' - instead, one charges for the initial work if that's all one does, but doesn't include it as part of the overall charge if one goes on 'to do the job'.

You stated you agreed with this view - as I had in my mind, but then it turned out you did not mean that, but meant at the same time as the CU change but obviously first, i.e. whilst dismantling. This is what I (used to) do. It seems common sense.

What I actually said is that it could be done on the day of the planned CU change, but that doesn't mean that it would necessarily always be the case. Some customers might prefer to pay for the EICR/whatever and they have time to think about its findings (and maybe 'shop around' for quotes for any remedial work that was necessary). Whether the electrician would subsequently waive all or part of that charge if they went on to 'do the job' is something that only they could decide.

I'm still not clear as to what you would have done if, in the course of a CU change, you had identified serious, maybe dangerous, faults in the installation and the customer refused to pay to have them rectified.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think you might be over-interpreting 'refund' - they might well simply be talking about a 'deduction' from the total they charge.

Well, yes of course.

I'm still not clear as to what you would have done if, in the course of a CU change, you had identified serious, maybe dangerous, faults in the installation and the customer refused to pay to have them rectified.

What would you do? Put it all back together?

 

[JohnW2]

What would you do? Put it all back together?

I really don't know - and, fortunately, it's not a situation I'm ever going to have to deal with. ... but could/should one 'walk away' from an installation in which some sockets had no earth, with metal light switches on circuits without CPCs, circuit(s) with iffy L-N IR etc. etc.? Have you ever experienced any difficult situations like that?

Mind you, if I were undertaking I&T of an installation (c.f. an EICR), as an exercise in itself (e.g. if it were not being done on the day of a CU change), I would 'put it all back together' as I went along - i.e. I would only usually have one final circuit disconnected from the CU at a time - in which case the issue would obviously not arise.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

... but could/should one 'walk away' from an installation in which some sockets had no earth, with metal light switches on circuits without CPCs, circuit(s) with iffy L-N IR etc. etc.? Have you ever experienced any difficult situations like that?

No. As I said, I must have been lucky or you are overthinking it.
You can tell from the building, what it might be like. No castles or stately homes in Bournemouth.

Mind you, if I were undertaking I&T of an installation (c.f. an EICR), as an exercise in itself (e.g. if it were not being done on the day of a CU change), I would 'put it all back together' as I went along - i.e. I would only usually have one final circuit disconnected from the CU at a time - in which case the issue would obviously not arise.

Well, if it were the last circuit then you would still be disconnecting everything and then reconnecting it all, and then doing it again another day, but that emphasises my point.

How would you charge for that? Using as an example of charges, e.g. 4 bed detached, with £180 for EICR and £300 for replacing CU (disregard £150 cost of CU).

£480 (total 630) or
£300 for two days work (total 450).

Figures may vary but you know what I'm getting at. We are not consultants; people don't like paying electricians.

 

[JohnW2]

No. As I said, I must have been lucky or you are overthinking it. You can tell from the building, what it might be like. No castles or stately homes in Bournemouth.

Fair enough. I'm merely thinking of 'what is possible'. Appearances can be deceptive, surprises occur and exceptions occur to prove rules.

Figures may vary but you know what I'm getting at. We are not consultants; people don't like paying electricians.

I've known, and understood, what you have been 'getting at' all along, but that doesn't really alter my personal feelings about how I think things ideally should be done - which, to be honest, is what I thought was a common practice of electricians.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Perhaps Winston will tell us which is the right way.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps Winston will tell us which is the right way.

Maybe he will

I'm sorry that this exchange between us has been so protracted, and this could well have happened because I have misunderstood what is common practice amongst electricians. On the basis of what I have seen a good few electricians say, I thought that 'testing before a CU change' was the common practice (and, as I've said, one that I can definitely sympathise with, electrically speaking). However, you seem to be suggesting otherwise, so maybe a lot of the discussion has been based on a false premise on my part.

I would certainly be interested to hear views of other electricians (retired or active!), and particularly from secure, whose comment is what started all this.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

You mean this one?

But surely the wiring will be tested and inspected prior to its connection to the new board???

 

[JohnW2]

You mean this one?

Indeed I do. If I understood correctly what you meant, it seems like common sense to me, and I thought was what most electricians would do, but EFLI seems to be suggesting something slightly different.

The main issue seems to be that of what you would do if your testing 'prior to connection to the new board' revealed faults on some circuit(s) which the customer was not willing to pay to have remedied. Would you still connect the faulty circuit(s) to a new board, or what?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Goodness me, John.

I have explained several times.

It is no good just saying "prior" as obviously it wouldn't be done afterwards.

Prior could be what you (as it turned out) and I mean - immediately prior whilst dismantling.
To others who have said before prior means at an earlier time, i.e.., the day or days before. This I cannot understand as it entails unnecessary work which, in my opinion, would be difficult to get the customer to agee to pay for or the electrician is going to lose out timewise.

 

[JohnW2]

I have explained several times. .... Prior could be what you (as it turned out) and I mean - immediately prior whilst dismantling. To others who have said before prior means at an earlier time, i.e.., the day or days before. This I cannot understand as it entails unnecessary work which, in my opinion, would be difficult to get the customer to agee to pay for or the electrician is going to lose out timewise.

Yes, you have written that several times, and I have read it several times, and understood your point several times.

I have also pointed out that, despite what you say about my 'agreeing' with you, what I said is that the I&T could (but not necessarily) be undertaken on the day of planned CU change.

In any event, none of that alters my desire to hear of the views and practices of other electricians.

In passing, I don't think that you ever responded to this - and, given that we are only a couple of weeks away from publication of "the 18th", I'd be interested to hear your views (and the views of others) ....

If you think it is saying (or intended to be saying) 'brought up to date' (aka not 'not retrospective') does that mean that, come next month, you would feel that you must not replace a CU in a TN installation without also installing an earth rod?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

As for the earth rod point; what do the regulations state?

Do they say one must be fitted?

 

[JohnW2]

As for the earth rod point; what do the regulations state? Do they say one must be fitted?

If it remains per DPC, then is certainly says that all installations must have an earth electrode - but, in the general run of things, people would say that requirement is 'not retrospective' (which, in general, I feel sure is the intention).

However (again if it remains per DPC), the wording of 132.16 is unchanged. Hence, as I said, if you believe that the intention of that wording is that, for the purpose of 132.16, the adequacy of 'earthing and bonding' has to be judged by current standards (i.e. not 'not retrospective'), then the implication would seem to be that no work, certainly no major work, could be undertaken on an installation without first fitting an earth rod (if it were TN).

What do you think?

Kind Regards, John