Moving a plastic CU

[ban-all-sheds]

Prompted by a recent question here.

Leaving aside for now the issue of whether it is even possible to comply with 421.1.201, would you think it applied when moving an existing CU to a new location?

 

[OwainDIYer]

How new is the location? If you're just shifting it sideways a couple of feet, then no.

If you're putting it in a new location and extending all the circuit cables etc, then I would think yes.

You don't have to comply with 421.1.201 of course, you just have to comply with Building Regulations which require IET Wiring Regs or an equivalent standard of safety.

 

[PBC_1966]

My feeling is that if you want to comply with the strict letter of BS7671 then yes, because once you remove the unit it then has to be re-installed somewhere else, so would be required to meet the new requirement (subject to all the debate about what it actually means anyway, etc.).

To compare with something you feel strongly about, if you moved a socket a few feet along a wall, would you consider that the newer rules requiring RCD protection would come into play? If so, then surely the same basic principle should apply to moving a CU?

you just have to comply with Building Regulations which require IET Wiring Regs or an equivalent standard of safety.

They actually just require "reasonable provision for safety."

 

[EFLImpudence]

My feeling is that if you want to comply with the strict letter of BS7671 then yes, because once you remove the unit it then has to be re-installed somewhere else, so would be required to meet the new requirement (subject to all the debate about what it actually means anyway, etc.).

Also notifiable as re-instating means replacing.

I don't make the rules.

 

[JohnW2]

Also notifiable as re-instating means replacing.

Even if it was only moved by a few inches, without the need to disconnect or reconnect any of the attached cables?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

To compare with something you feel strongly about, if you moved a socket a few feet along a wall, would you consider that the newer rules requiring RCD protection would come into play? If so, then surely the same basic principle should apply to moving a CU?

Yes, that would be logical - theoretically even if it were moved only a few inches, or even millimetres! What about replacing the socket (because it was damaged or had become faulty), without moving it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Also notifiable as re-instating means replacing.

Hmm..... I'm not so sure about that one. Couldn't it be argued that if it's the same CU moved intact (i.e. same casing, same busbars, same circuit breakers) that nothing has actually been replaced, merely moved?

What about replacing the socket (because it was damaged or had become faulty), without moving it?

I think most people accept such replacements as not triggering the various rules for newly installed equipment. But what if, say due to crumbling brickwork as the box and cable are disturbed, you refix the back box an inch further away from its original position and then make good around it? Have you then moved the socket, bringing the rules for a new socket into play?

I can see this getting into the same realms of interpretation and arguments over pedantic semantics as many of the other similar things we've discussed.

 

[JohnW2]

Hmm..... I'm not so sure about that one. Couldn't it be argued that if it's the same CU moved intact (i.e. same casing, same busbars, same circuit breakers) that nothing has actually been replaced, merely moved?

Indeed - until someone gets out their dictionary and telling us what is one of the meanings of 'replace' ('put back')

I think most people accept such replacements as not triggering the various rules for newly installed equipment. But what if, say due to crumbling brickwork as the box and cable are disturbed, you refix the back box an inch further away from its original position and then make good around it? Have you then moved the socket, bringing the rules for a new socket into play? I can see this getting into the same realms of interpretation and arguments over pedantic semantics as many of the other similar things we've discussed.

Quite so. I think this is probably one of those situations in which common sense should probably prevail, regardless of what rules and regulations "actually say"!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

(Forgot to submit earlier)


It's up to you.