Sub-Board - Second Consumer Unit

As BAS and myself have just pointed out, there is one phrase in that declaration which seems to imply that the person signing it has actually undertaken the tasks.

However, as for bernard's point about "being responsible" (which is really also the basis of your comment), there is plenty of precedent for people been 'held responsible' not only retrospectively, but for things with which they have had no direct involvement at all - we see lots of sackings and resignations of directors, CEOs, ministers etc. because of their responsibility for the actions/inactions of those 'under them', even if they were not aware of the particular actions/inactions. Hence, if the declaration did not include then "when carrying out" bit, there might be a lot more scope for debate.

I wonder how a hypothetical 'court', or any part of officialdom, would view the situation if someone signed the declaration, 'taking responsibility' for the design, construction and I&T, but crossing out or modifying the "when carrying out" bit?

Kind Regards, John

 

I'm seeking a second opinion and we are very much at the planning stages, so opening up to the world of knowledge (or strangers on the internet) can be a good thing.
If you clever chaps come up with an alternative solution or make some negative observations then that's the idea of the forum?
I think you're being a bit over zealous tbh ... I'm literally taking about running a cable from the main board to an area ready for a sub board?

 

There is a version of the BS7671 EIC that provides for separate signatures for the separate activities.
See Form #2 in Guidance Note 3

 

There is indeed. However, the person signing for the 'construction' presumably has to be someone who, themselves, is regarded as being competent to undertake that aspect of the job without supervision?

I do think that, in common sense terms (and the spirit of the 'proper' way), we get over-excited about this. Provided that none of the 'construction' work is concealed (i.e. remains totally open to inspection), that the signatory regards the design as acceptable and compliant (even if he/she might have done it differently) and provided that the results of their I&T are satisfactory, then I see no (common sense) problem with someone signing a 'single' declaration (even 'retrospectively'), even if they did not personally carry out some (or all) of the 'construction', do you?

Kind Regards, John

 

That is true. The various people responsible separately certify that they have done their bit in accordance with BS7671.

The OP's issue may be that he will need to find an electrician who can be bothered to mess around like this. Everybody i know has work coming out of their ears and will walk away from this sort of thing as there are plenty of other jobs - without complications - to do.

 

Seem to remember you can get forms with three signatures one for design, one for installation, and one for inspecting and testing, this is common with industrial installations, in England although not in Wales firms can now sign off work under Part P instead of involving LABC as with LABC of course they need to be in at the start, can't do the work then call them in, and it seems idea is firms Plumbers can do some electric work then the Electrician inspects it, so in some cases they are not inspecting work by Joe public, but there is nothing any longer to stop them.

I think one has to separate Part P from wiring regulations, there are quite a few things where they don't match, German sockets for example, allowed under Part P but not under wiring regulations.

However idea of second consumer unit works well, have it in this house, a 70A MCB I think feeds a SWA cable which runs around outside of house to kitchen, it was originally done as the electrics were very bad and the kitchen refurbishment needed doing without affecting rest of house. Now whole house has been rewired, however second CU remains.

 

Exactly that ... I've found that a lot of sparkies CBA to be lifting 100 year old floorboards, or spending too much time thinking about where to hide cables unless its a well paid job.
Getting people to even come and give you a price is a nightmare.

 

What does that mean? It seems to be an odd comparison - Part P is one sentence, but BS7671 is well over 500 pages.

Kind Regards, John

 

Same in my cottage's kitchen. And a second one for the cottage itself. Again due to lack of clear cable routes through a thick stone wall.

 

You presumable had to get some cable(s) though, even if it/they were feeds to kitchen CU, rather than final circuits?

In my (large) house I have multiple CUs. It makes sense in my situation, since many of the final circuits would otherwise be very long, hence at least some of them would probably need a larger CSA. It's also convenient having CUs relatively close to the parts of the house they serve.

Kind Regards, John

 

Bernard - I cannot think of anything you could possibly say which would change the words of the declaration on an EIC.

 

We know what you are talking about.

There is no point talking about it with us.

You need to talk about it with electrician(s) until you find one happy to sign declarations that he sized, chose the route for, and installed the cable.

 

BS7671 is not law, Part P is law although badly written, we know following BS7671 the requirements of Part P are normally satisfied, however there is nothing in Part P which says "I being the person responsible for the design, construction, inspection & testing" that is BS7671 there does not need to be an insulation certificate, in fact since only the person doing the work can sign the installation certificate if you go down the LABC route often all you have is a completion certificate you don't have an insulation certificate.

As long as you have either a completion or compliance certificate that is all that is required by law, and it is very poorly written law as it uses words without defining them, so a consumer unit is a type tested distribution unit, if it is altered then it is no longer a consumer unit as type testing is lost, we know where under the control of an ordinary person we should not use non type tested equipment, but that is not law, so it would need a court case at which point it becomes case law. Personally I would not want to go to court to make case law, and would follow BS7671, but until it does go to court, we can't really answer as to what is against the law.

However as court cases do go on, over time Part P will grow, as added to the original is all the case law, so by now likely Part P is far bigger than BS7671 if we read all the cases, however it seems in the main people are taken to court for claiming to be scheme members when they are not, I have not seen a single case where some one has been taken to court for breaching Part P law other than claiming to be scheme members when they are not, or installing some thing where it was very dangerous or some one has been killed. The Emma Shaw case has nothing to do with Part P, if you do something dangerous it does not need Part P to take you to court.

 

P1 is the legal instrument. I think it is perfectly well written.
Maybe you are referring to that guide thing that is called the “Approved Document”.

Sorry, Eric but CBA to read the rest of your three pages…

 

For the umpteenth time, Eric.

That is Part P in its entirity. THERE IS NO MORE.


Approved Document P is an irrelevance.

It (as are all the other letters) is a guidance book someone wrongly thought necessary to write in order to explain and confuse relatively clear (much more concise) Building Regulations and another book we have.

As a matter of interest, how can Approved Document P be correct[sic] for both England and Wales?[/QUOTE]