Sign off for consumer unit changes if circuits are non-compliant

[OldKettle]

Hi,
I am hoping that somebody could help me with a quick question, please.

Can an electrician make changes to a CU (either adding RCDs to existing circuits, replacing MCBs with RCBOs for existing circuits, or changing a whole CU but not adding new circuits) and sign off the work, if there are other issues with the existing circuits which make them non-compliant with regs?

I understand that they would need to sign off any new circuit they installed, but not sure for CU changes which don't otherwise alter the circuits.

 

[Murdochcat]

The EIC has a field for description of work and as long as that’s completed sensibly then possible issues with other circuits are irrelevant

 

[JohnW2]

.... if there are other issues with the existing circuits which make them non-compliant with regs?

I would that that that might, to some extent, depend upon what sort of 'issues' you had in mind. For example, some such issues might preclude the (required) proper testing of the new work, which could be a problem.

Kind Regards, John

 

[OldKettle]

Thanks to both of you.

As John says, it makes sense that if the issue was such that the work couldn't be tested it would be a problem.

As most of the installation is old (not sure how old but probably at least 20-30 years) I was expecting that there could perhaps be issues with resistance testing or other age related issues. I don't know anywhere enough to predict what else there might be, and which issues could prevent testing.

I have thought for a while now that a full rewire is on the cards (aside from the age we need more sockets anyway and I would like to have power run down to the end of the garden too).

If adding an RCBO to Circuit A, means that there might need to be remedial work on Circuit A, but changing the CU might mean remedial work to A, B, C, D, E, F and G then that probably suggests RCBO on A for now and then a new CU with the rewire.

Of course, if remedial work is needed, it is needed, but I'd need tp plan a lot more for a rewire vs a new RCBO.

Is the above assumption even correct (i.e. that a new RCBO on Circuit A would on require (at most) remedial work to circuit A)?

 

[JohnW2]

If adding an RCBO to Circuit A, means that there might need to be remedial work on Circuit A, but changing the CU might mean remedial work to A, B, C, D, E, F and G then that probably suggests RCBO on A for now and then a new CU with the rewire. .... Is the above assumption even correct (i.e. that a new RCBO on Circuit A would on require (at most) remedial work to circuit A)?

If the problem with circuit A is such that the newly installed RCBO trips, then the problem obviously needs to be remedied.

However, as has been said, if there are no 'issues' with some circuits which impact on the new work, and do not prevent the new work being fully tested, then there is probably no problem.

Having said all this, it could well be that you're being unnecessarily pessimistic in assuming that there will be (important) 'issues' with some of the circuits. If the wiring is less than, say, 50 or so years old, it's pretty unlikley that the cables, per se, will have deteriorated in any significant way.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Each edition will have a statement like

BS 7671:2008 Requirements for Electrical Installations was issued on 1st January 2008 and is intended to come into effect on 1st July 2008. Installations designed after 30st June 2008 are to comply with BS 7671:2008.

Note design date not installation date, so if circuit design has not altered and it complied to begin with, and nothing has degraded, then it still complies.

A few problems, one is where there was some clarification, so we thought it complied at the time of installing, but we had been reading the regulations wrong, another is where if some think, then some thing can be omitted, so it did comply until the room became the new bathroom for example. Plastic insulation does not tend to degrade, but rubber does, plastic can degrade in sun light, and also what is being powered changes, I am thinking of one regulation which says "(ix) Lighting fittings using filament lamps" and today we don't tend to use filament lamps.

The other is clearly when it never complied in the first place, Dad's house had wall lamps, with no earth, and lights before 1966 were permitted with not earth, if mounted at such a height that they cannot readily be touched, but his lights could be touched.

The problem seen many times of late, is converting 12 volt lights to 230 volt, where they are not suspended, i.e. G5.3 to GU10 down lights, they need an earth running to lamp, even if not required to connect the earth.

An EIC (electrical installation certificate) needs to comply with current regulations, but an EICR (electrical installation condition report) only needs to code dangerous and potentially dangerous items, it does not list things simply as they no longer comply.

But it is all left to the electrician doing the job, he has the final word as to if allowed or not.

 

[JohnW2]

Each edition will have a statement like Note design date not installation date, so if circuit design has not altered and it complied to begin with, and nothing has degraded, then it still complies.

As I understand it, the OP is not talking about a situation in which something has become 'non-compliant' (or, at least, non-conformant) because of changes in regulations but, rather, a situation in which problems (faults/deteriorations) have arisen over the course of time following installation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

Each edition will have a statement like Note design date not installation date, so if circuit design has not altered and it complied to begin with, and nothing has degraded, then it still complies.

A few problems, one is where there was some clarification, so we thought it complied at the time of installing, but we had been reading the regulations wrong, another is where if some think, then some thing can be omitted, so it did comply until the room became the new bathroom for example. Plastic insulation does not tend to degrade, but rubber does, plastic can degrade in sun light, and also what is being powered changes, I am thinking of one regulation which says "(ix) Lighting fittings using filament lamps" and today we don't tend to use filament lamps.

The other is clearly when it never complied in the first place, Dad's house had wall lamps, with no earth, and lights before 1966 were permitted with not earth, if mounted at such a height that they cannot readily be touched, but his lights could be touched.

The problem seen many times of late, is converting 12 volt lights to 230 volt, where they are not suspended, i.e. G5.3 to GU10 down lights, they need an earth running to lamp, even if not required to connect the earth.

An EIC (electrical installation certificate) needs to comply with current regulations, but an EICR (electrical installation condition report) only needs to code dangerous and potentially dangerous items, it does not list things simply as they no longer comply.

But it is all left to the electrician doing the job, he has the final word as to if allowed or not.

No it doesn't "still comply" - it just may not necessarily be unsafe or require upgrading. Not the same thing at all.

 

[plugwash]

The issue with CU replacements is that the purpose of a CU is to contain protective devices. Generally replacing a CU implies replacing the protective devices for the circuits fed from that CU. Often they are replaced with ones to different standards or even entirely new categories of protection are added.

So the installer is effectively responsible for ensuring that the circuits fed from the CU are safe and functional with the new protective devices. That doesn't nessacerally mean fixing every single non-compliance but it does mean at the very least dealing with anything that is either immediately dangerous, or will cause tripping of the new protective devices.

It would be a foolhardy electrican who replaced a CU without undertaking at least basic testing of the circuits fed from that CU first.

 

[Murdochcat]

It would be a foolhardy electrican who replaced a CU without undertaking at least basic testing of the circuits fed from that CU first.

Not sure I agree with that statement at all

 

[JohnW2]

No it doesn't "still comply" - it just may not necessarily be unsafe or require upgrading. Not the same thing at all.

One has to be careful about words/terminolgy these days, since BS7671 has now produced a (seemingly rather odd!) definition which means that something which does not conform with regulations in BS7671 is not necessarily "non-compliant" with the regulations!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

One has to be careful about words/terminolgy these days, since BS7671 has now produced a (seemingly rather odd!) definition which means that something which does not conform with regulations in BS7671 is not necessarily "non-compliant" with the regulations!

Kind Regards, John

The people that put this together really need to be held accountable for this rubbish

 

[JohnW2]

The people that put this together really need to be held accountable for this rubbish

As a generalisation, I would certainly agree.

In this particular case I think that, despite having made a total mess of doing it, they may have been trying to be sensible by making it clear that something which did not conform with requirements of BS7671 is not necessarily 'dangerous' - so their hearts, if not their brains, may possibly have been in roughly the right place!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

One has to be careful about words/terminolgy these days, since BS7671 has now produced a (seemingly rather odd!) definition which means that something which does not conform with regulations in BS7671 is not necessarily "non-compliant" with the regulations!

Kind Regards, John

It's a somewhat bizarre claim that it isn't a non-compliance, but you're correct that such claims have been made. Redefining words in the English language isn't always a sensible idea in my view!

 

[JohnW2]

It's a somewhat bizarre claim that it isn't a non-compliance, but you're correct that such claims have been made. Redefining words in the English language isn't always a sensible idea in my view!

It's not a 'claim', but rather a BS7671-specific definition that they have chosen to produce.

Whatever my personal view may be, it is far from uncommon for context-specific definitions to be created within documents, laws or whatever, which ascribe meanings in that context to words which have other established meanings in general use in the English Language.

However, messy and unsatisfactory though the way they have tried to do it, as I said I think they were probably trying to make the point that something which was 'not consistent with' requirements of BS7671 was not necessarily something that was dangerous (and hence 'needed to be remedied'). In terms of EICRs, I suppose that corresponds with the question of whether or not something which does not conform with BS7671 qualifies as a "C2" (or C1!).

Kind Regards, John