Consumer Unit Move

[JohnW2]

The answer to (2) depends on what you're going to do about (1) & (4), because opinions vary.

If one were going to ignore (1) and (4), then (2) would really be a bit moot, since one's approach would presumably be that of ignoring all laws and regulations. I am therefore asking in relation to (1) and (4) having been done properly.

Are you saying that the opinion of those providing IECs and certifying (or self-certifying) under Part P vary as to the answer to (2). If so, that's obviously a rathery messy situation - but, in any event, I wonder what your opinion (or the opinion of anyone else reading this!) is about the answer?

 

[riveralt]

You know about part P so either you notify the change of consumer unit to the Local Authority Building Control or you get a registered electrician in to do it for you.
BS7671:2008 and Part P applies to anything you fit now and not what was already fitted before.
So if you are doing this yourself - notify the LABC - Do all the necessary tests to enable you to complete the EIC and give a copy to the LABC.

Oh and make sure that the test results meet the criteria of BS7671:2008.

 

[JohnW2]

You know about part P so either you notify the change of consumer unit to the Local Authority Building Control or you get a registered electrician in to do it for you.
BS7671:2008 and Part P applies to anything you fit now and not what was already fitted before.
So if you are doing this yourself - notify the LABC - Do all the necessary tests to enable you to complete the EIC and give a copy to the LABC.
Oh and make sure that the test results meet the criteria of BS7671:2008.

Yes, I understand all that, and maybe that's all that ban-all-sheds meant (a little difficult to tell when all that is posted is a numbered list ). However, I though that (s)he was implying that undertaking the work I have mentioned might invoke a requirement for the entire installation to be (retrospectively) compliant with all aspects of BS7621:2008/17th Ed., which obviously could be a whole different ball game Maybe that was not the intention.

 

[riveralt]

Yes, I understand all that, and maybe that's all that ban-all-sheds meant (a little difficult to tell when all that is posted is a numbered list ). However, I though that (s)he was implying that undertaking the work I have mentioned might invoke a requirement for the entire installation to be (retrospectively) compliant with all aspects of BS7621:2008/17th Ed., which obviously could be a whole different ball game Maybe that was not the intention.

This is a quotation from BS7671:2008 which covers your situation.

"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect.
This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I understand all that, and maybe that's all that ban-all-sheds meant (a little difficult to tell when all that is posted is a numbered list ). However, I though that (s)he was implying that undertaking the work I have mentioned might invoke a requirement for the entire installation to be (retrospectively) compliant with all aspects of BS7621:2008/17th Ed., which obviously could be a whole different ball game Maybe that was not the intention.

This is a quotation from BS7671:2008 which covers your situation.

"Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect.
This does not necessarily mean that they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."

That's what I thought - so I guess I was reading too much into what ban-all-sheds wrote. Thanks for confirming.

Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, I though that (s)he was implying that undertaking the work I have mentioned might invoke a requirement for the entire installation to be (retrospectively) compliant with all aspects of BS7621:2008/17th Ed., which obviously could be a whole different ball game Maybe that was not the intention.

Sort of.

Obviously any work an electrician does should comply with the Wiring Regulations; he will want (or be required by the Competent Person scheme to which he belongs) to issue an EIC stating compliance, and for notifiable work (which this is) complying with the Wiring Regulations is by far and away the most hassle-free way of showing compliance with P1.

Now, quite a few electricians do believe that if you replace a CU "complying with the Wiring Regulations" means that you have to provide RCD protection in line with them, divide the circuits in line with them, correct any non-compliances found during testing, and so on.

So what will matter will be the opinion of the person who is doing the work and issuing the EIC.

 

[JohnW2]

Obviously any work an electrician does should comply with the Wiring Regulations ..... Now, quite a few electricians do believe that if you replace a CU "complying with the Wiring Regulations" means that you have to provide RCD protection in line with them, divide the circuits in line with them, correct any non-compliances found during testing, and so on.
So what will matter will be the opinion of the person who is doing the work and issuing the EIC.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. The work I have described, and immediately associated issues, would certainly be compliant - including matters such as RCD protection, circuit division, sizing of meter tails and Earthing/MEB conductors etc. The grey area is obviously that of 'correcting non-compliances found during testing'. The installation is extensive, and nearly all undertaken in relation to earlier editions of the regs, so there will inevitably be a lot of technical non-compliances with current regs if one goes looking for them. However, as riveraft has said, the regs do acknowledge that this is not necessarily a problem.

Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I said, what will matter will be the opinion of the person who is doing the work and issuing the EIC.

 

[JohnW2]

As I said, what will matter will be the opinion of the person who is doing the work and issuing the EIC.

Indeed, and for that reason I would interrogate someone extensively about their opinions before considering getting them to do work for me! Of course, if it were me that was going to be doing the work, I'd already know my opinions

Regards, John.

 

[mbga9pgf]

As I said, what will matter will be the opinion of the person who is doing the work and issuing the EIC.

Indeed, and for that reason I would interrogate someone extensively about their opinions before considering getting them to do work for me! Of course, if it were me that was going to be doing the work, I'd already know my opinions

Regards, John.

I wonder what BAS will talk about once the coalition do away with Part P?

 

[JohnW2]

I wonder what BAS will talk about once the coalition do away with Part P?

BAS strikes me as someone who probably could always find something to talk about ("the doing away of Part P", perhaps?!), but I wouldn't know to what extent the 'talking' would be of value in relation to the question originally posed

Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed, and for that reason I would interrogate someone extensively about their opinions before considering getting them to do work for me!

Why - are there some opinions held by qualified and experienced electricians which you are competent to disagree with, argue against, and judge them on?

Of course, if it were me that was going to be doing the work, I'd already know my opinions

If it were, then I hope you would.

But as you clearly do not, I sincerely hope it is not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I wonder what BAS will talk about once the coalition do away with Part P?

The same as now - the issues of competence to carry out work.

I'm sure that anybody who isn't a complete tw** can provide a rational and intelligent explanation of why the skills and knowledge needed, and procedures that should sensibly be followed, when changing a CU and changing the characteristics of every single final circuit would not change by one iota were Part P to be revoked.

You can start.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS strikes me as someone who probably could always find something to talk about ("the doing away of Part P", perhaps?!), but I wouldn't know to what extent the 'talking' would be of value in relation to the question originally posed

Regards, John

The question originally posted?

Hi there, I'm thinking of replacing my CU with a different one and in the process I will be changing the characteristics of every single final circuit.

I look forward to hearing thoughts on this.

My thoughts were that the following areas needed to be considered:

1. The law governing the proposed work.
2. The extent to which the person doing the work considered that non-compliances with the current version of the Wiring Regulations needed to be resolved as part of the proposed work.
3. What was going to be done about testing.
4. What was going to be done about issuing an EIC for the work.

Can you explain how they are not of any value, given that you asked to hear people's thoughts?

 

[JohnW2]

The question originally posted?

Hi there, I'm thinking of replacing my CU with a different one and in the process I will be changing the characteristics of every single final circuit.
I look forward to hearing thoughts on this.

I wasn't actually referring specifically to this thread, but since you're using it as an example ....

For a start, your 'summary' is unfortunately inaccurate. I made it very clear that I was talking about relocating an existing CU, not "replacing it with a different one"; as for the remainder, I suppose some would agree that it is technically correct to consider that extending each final circuit by about 4 feet amounts to "changing the characteristics" of all those circuits, although that does make it sound a bit dramatic!

However, more to the point, your summary has cunningly skipped over the specific "question originally posted" (actually two questions), and jumped to my final "any thoughts?" comment, which was intended to refer back to my actual questions - namely;

I therefore wonder what views are on the alternative strategy of extending all of the 11 cables from their present position (near ceiling) to the new position. ..... Secondly, if this extension approach were taken, I wonder what would be the most sensible and neatest way to do it.

My thoughts were that the following areas needed to be considered:
1. The law governing the proposed work.
2. The extent to which the person doing the work considered that non-compliances with the current version of the Wiring Regulations needed to be resolved as part of the proposed work.
3. What was going to be done about testing.
4. What was going to be done about issuing an EIC for the work.
Can you explain how they are not of any value, given that you asked to hear people's thoughts?

I never said that they are not of any value, and they certainly would be of value to anyone who does not realise the need to consider those things (and you don't know me from Adam, so I can't blame you) - but I'm sure you will agree that those general thoughts (which I imagine would be applicable to a high proportion of threads in this forum), valuable though they are, don't actually help me in relation to the specific questions I posed.

Kind Regards, John