New CU and failed IR tests

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Been to a job today, asked to install UFH.
I needed to get a feed from somewhere, so asked property owner where Fuse board was?
The property has a very recently installed CU (jan 2018), but noticed that two socket circuits not covered by RCD and a lighting circuit also not protected.
So was puzzled and asked if I could view the installation cert, which there was one. Tests showed that one socket circuit had a reading of 0.22MΩ between L-N and lighting 0MΩ, yet the installer still installed these circuits but thought it right to exclude RCD protection.
The second socket circuit was within permitted measurement, but still not RCD protected.
As the CU was newly installed and the work under warranty. I told the customer, she best contact the installer, who just so happens to be on holiday. As I did not want to invalidate it, by making things safe!!!!

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

PS Happy New Year, y'all!

 

[JohnW2]

PS Happy New Year, y'all!

... and you. Good to see you again!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

... and you. Good to see you again!

Kind Regards, John

Thanks John, I have been very busy last few months.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Thanks. Same to you PBoD.

 

[ericmark]

Can we when changing a damaged distribution unit, refuse to reinstate the power if no immediate danger? The circuits it supplies are not new circuits, so only need to comply with regulations in force when first installed. Personally I test before I start and if there is a fault before changing a distribution unit as a simple upgrade I would test all circuits. But where there is a fault with the distribution unit, like casing damaged, then it needs changing, and one would fit a modern version, however if the circuits have a fault, then you must report the fault, but unless that fault presents immediate danger, then not your call to isolate.

And for all you know it may have been left isolated. I remember doing a job where many doors were locked, so unable to gain access to test, I left all MCB's to circuits which did not pass switched off, and the lid tie rapped down, and a note left detailing the problems for the day electrician to investigate, talking to the day guy next week he never got the list, seems some manager wanted power, so letter went in bin and tie rape cut off and all MCB's switched on. It happens, so the house holder could have been left a list and told you need this work doing, be the house holder decided can't afford it, I'm just turning them on again.

 

[JohnW2]

It happens, so the house holder could have been left a list and told you need this work doing, be the house holder decided can't afford it, I'm just turning them on again.

There is obviously a lot of common sense to be applied here, and I would hope that any electrician finding an installation (or part of an installation) that he/she felt represented a serious danger would do everything they could to dissuade the owner of the installation not to use it (or parts of it) until it was remedied.

However, I'm not aware of any process whereby an electrician can 'require' a customer not to use an installation, and I am not even sure they would (other than in common sense terms) really be entitled to 'tamper with' an installation (which they considered dangerous) in such a way as to make it 'unusable'. Don't forget, there is a lot of 'CYA' around and they might have thoughts about the Sunday paper headline "Elderly lady dies of hypothermia after electrician disables her electrical supply"!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Thanks. Same to you PBoD.

Thanks EFLI

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

Can we when changing a damaged distribution unit, refuse to reinstate the power if no immediate danger?

I would have thought if the circuit visual condition and tests, suggest that circuit is unsafe to put back in to service, that the logical a correct process would be not to reinstate it.

The circuits it supplies are not new circuits, so only need to comply with regulations in force when first installed.

But would this also allow the exclusion of RCD protection on socket outlets and cable buried in walls (as per BS7671:2008)? Personally I inspect/test before any removals of old a DBs and if there is a fault, I would inform the client, as it allows you as the electrician to explain to the customer via your inspection/testing, to explain why a new/swapped consumer unit/DB and cannot be installed without further investigation or remedial work, where that applies.

But where there is a fault with the distribution unit, like casing damaged, then it needs changing, and one would fit a modern version, however if the circuits have a fault, then you must report the fault, but unless that fault presents immediate danger, then not your call to isolate.

I agree, there would be certain circumstance where it would be safer to replace distribution boards, when it is deemed that the existing one is a danger. But if a circuit fails the tests that then deems that circuit unsafe, I would report this to the client and refuse to install it.

And for all you know it may have been left isolated. I remember doing a job where many doors were locked, so unable to gain access to test, I left all MCB's to circuits which did not pass switched off, and the lid tie rapped down, and a note left detailing the problems for the day electrician to investigate, talking to the day guy next week he never got the list, seems some manager wanted power, so letter went in bin and tie rape cut off and all MCB's switched on.

I that case I would removed the terminated cables from the devices and busbar and left note with supervisor and a notice at the board. Taking picture of it!

But unfortunately, with regards to the situation of the subject topic, I think no prior inspection/tests have been undertaken, overwise the homeowner could have been made aware of the situation regarding very low IR tests. If tests results are correct on the EIC, then surely this is a code 1 and should be dealt with accordingly?

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

There is obviously a lot of common sense to be applied here, and I would hope that any electrician finding an installation (or part of an installation) that he/she felt represented a serious danger would do everything they could to dissuade the owner of the installation not to use it (or parts of it) until it was remedied.

That would be a logically step, regretfully as an electrician we can one remark and advise. Where a gas engineer can cap off. But in the case of reterminating a circuit to a new DB, that could cause a hazard, I am sure I would not regardless of the what the client requests, I am sure H&S and part p would or should apply?

However, I'm not aware of any process whereby an electrician can 'require' a customer not to use an installation, and I am not even sure they would (other than in common sense terms) really be entitled to 'tamper with' an installation (which they considered dangerous) in such a way as to make it 'unusable'. Don't forget, there is a lot of 'CYA' around and they might have thoughts about the Sunday paper headline "Elderly lady dies of hypothermia after electrician disables her electrical supply"!

Then on the flip side of that you get the headline "Family dies in house, after electrician leaves house unsafe" Can't win can you?
But if a circuit is unsafe, it should not be left in continued service, should it?

 

[securespark]

PS Happy New Year, y'all!

And you! Wishing you all the best for 2018.
Just make sure that in-between all that hard work you leave some time for recuperation.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

And you! Wishing you all the best for 2018.

Thank you, my best wishes to you Secure

Just make sure that in-between all that hard work you leave some time for recuperation.

Been a bit crazy of late but have some chill time coming my way.

 

[JohnW2]

That would be a logically step, regretfully as an electrician we can one [only] remark and advise. Whereas a gas engineer can cap off.

As you will understand, that was my point.

But in the case of reterminating a circuit to a new DB, that could cause a hazard, I am sure I would not regardless of the what the client requests, I am sure H&S and part p would or should apply?

Again, you are talking common sense, but I think this underlines the fact that an electrician should test (and 'advise accordingly') before 'doing anything'. Whatever the common sense and morality (and even legalities) of a situation, if an electrician does not 'pre-test' before disconnecting circuits (e.g. by removing a CU) he/she is then in a potentially difficult situation if he/she then refuses to put the installation back into a 'usable' state. Far better to refuse to do the work (unless/until the identified problems/dangers, as advised to the customer, have been remedied) on the basis of the initial I&T.

But if a circuit is unsafe, it should not be left in continued service, should it?

That's common sense, again, but I have no idea how the law works in this respect. How would you (and the law) feel if a service station disabled your car, so that you could not use it, because it had failed an MOT?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Or refused to return it to you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I suppose with an MOT fail a garage could phone the police to report the use of an unroadworthy vehicle.