Boiler wiring /spur

[EFLImpudence]

No electrical certification provided as no fixed wiring was changed.

It should be tested though, so may as well record the results.

 

[JohnW2]

It should be tested though, so may as well record the results.

What sort of 'testing' do you have n mind?

If one plugs a plug into an existing socket, one would not test anything (well, I wouldn't ) - so in what way is connecting something to an existing FCU materially different from that, requiring 'testing' ?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well - the obvious.

That it is earthed properly; EFLI/Zs , polarity, insulation resistance, etc.

The things to ensure the circuit is safe; as the actual Part P states.

 

[JohnW2]

Well - the obvious. ... That it is earthed properly; EFLI/Zs , polarity, insulation resistance, etc. .... The things to ensure the circuit is safe; as the actual Part P states.

Yes, in many senses that is 'obvious'. However, as I said, connecting something to the load terminals of an existing FCU does not seem materially different from plugging a plug into an existing socket - so why, I wonder, is it 'obvious'; that we should undertake testing in the former case, yet (I would have thought) exceedingly unlikely that we would do any testing in the latter case?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Daft, of course, but if one has to deal with such a person,I very much doubt that they would look to determine, or care about,what was feeding the FCU - so if you present them with an FCU close to the boiler, the supply side of which is fed ('out of sight') through a bit of flex with a 13Aplug on the end of it, I would be very surprised if they would notice.

Indeed, Mr Jobsworth might be happy even if he did 'notice', since I think the MIs usually only say that the boiler should be hard-wired to an FCU, without saying anything about what feeds the FCU ... so Jobsworth's box may be 'ticked'

Kind Regards, John

You make a very good point it would comply with manufacturers instructions if the FCU is supplied from a plug which is plugged into a type A RCD socket. It ticks all the boxes.

No electrical certification provided as no fixed wiring was changed.

You mean the boiler was not fixed to the wall?

Yes, in many senses that is 'obvious'. However, as I said, connecting something to the load terminals of an existing FCU does not seem materially different from plugging a plug into an existing socket - so why, I wonder, is it 'obvious'; that we should undertake testing in the former case, yet (I would have thought) exceedingly unlikely that we would do any testing in the latter case?

Kind Regards, John

The boiler is normally fixed, so under the new landlord laws it should be inspected and tested with all other fixed electrical equipment, the law does not state if using EICR forms or using PAT testing forms, it states "“electrical installation” has the meaning given in regulation 2(1) of the Building Regulations 2010(2);" which in turn says "“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter;" so one needs some documentation covering the electrical installation when a new boiler is fitted. I agree it is not possibly "Electrical installation (abbr: installation). An assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil Specific purposes." it come really under "Current-using equipment. Equipment which converts electrical energy into another form of energy, such as light, heat or motive power." so would come under the inspection and testing of in-service electrical equipment" not part of the EICR or EIC.

I think likely there is no problem changing a FCU for a plug and socket. However there could be circumstances where there is a problem, for example when fed from the lights, so can't simply say yes change it will be OK, one needs to know a little more before one can say that.

And when a new boiler is installed there is normally some assorted equipment with in, thermostats, wiring centres, motorised valves etc, so since as a result the equipment can't really be pre-tested before it is dispatched there would need to be some paperwork.

 

[pcaouolte]

You mean the boiler was not fixed to the wall?

The boiler was fixed to the wall and the bit of flex that came pre-wired to the boiler was connected to the existing wiring centre. I don't know what tests you would expect on that? None were done.

A bit like me buying a new fridge and plugging it into a socket, no tests get done on that either.

 

[ericmark]

On another post today this is typical of Plumbers doing electrical work, and if you don't inspect and test, then the fault becomes yours.

 

[JohnW2]

The boiler was fixed to the wall and the bit of flex that came pre-wired to the boiler was connected to the existing wiring centre. I don't know what tests you would expect on that? None were done.

Quite so. However,as eric has said ..... I strongly suspect that those who wrote the'landlord legislation' didn't even realise thee can of worms they were opening when they referenced the Buildings Regs definition of "electrical installation" - since,by so doing, they extended the required inspection beyond that of an EICR, to also include all'permanently connected' electrical equipment.

In one sense,I suppose that's reasonable. The legislation is all about 'electrical safety', and one can (given appropriate faults) et an electric shock from a boiler or washing machine etc. just as easily as from, say, an electrical accessory.

A bit like me buying a new fridge and plugging it into a socket, no tests get done on that either.

Indeed - that's the discussion I'm having with EFLI!

Kind Regards, John

 

[pcaouolte]

Sorry, I see that I have overlapped with other posts saying basically the same thing.

 

[CBW]

Well - the obvious.

That it is earthed properly; EFLI/Zs , polarity, insulation resistance, etc.

The things to ensure the circuit is safe; as the actual Part P states.

Wouldn’t 500v kill a boiler/pcb?

 

[danfre]

Which Regis that ?

Serious question

 

[danfre]

Will look it up.
The reason for it is for safe isolation

 

[hovertoast]

An EIC for a spur - really ?

Yes I believe so. As I say, it was done before I lived here so it was just one of the many bits of paper we got when we bought the house. I’ll try and dig it out.

 

[EFLImpudence]

My reference to testing arose in reply to an immersion heater being connected to an old flex and FCU (not buying a fridge and plugging it in).

If anyone thinks something like that should not be subject to minimal testing, that is up to you.

 

[JohnW2]

My reference to testing arose in reply to an immersion heater being connected to an old flex and FCU (not buying a fridge and plugging it in).

I know it was, but I really still think that ...

...... Old flex between FCU and immersion heater connected to new immersion heater without removing the faceplate of the FCU.

... is only a hair's breadth different from 'plugging in a new fridge'.

If anyone thinks something like that should not be subject to minimal testing, that is up to you.

Not that it's a decision I'll ever have to make (other than in deciding whether or not to issue myself woth a MinorWorks cert ), but I suppose I must be one of those 'anyones'. If I did feel that testing was required (when swapping connections to flex from an old item to the replacement one) I think that, in the interests of consistency, I would (for the above reason) probably feel that testing was also necessary whenever plugging in a new item (or maybe when I 'plugged in' any item?).

I have some outside lights which requires use of a screwdriver in order to change a lamp/bulb - do you feel that I should undertake tests (and maybe issue myself with a cert) whenever I did that [genuine question]?

I see that you have moved from "testing" to "minimal testing". What do you feel would suffice (in the immersion case)?

Kind Regards, John