Dangerous conditions found during CU change.

[Whitbreadz]

First post so bare with me, and apologies if this isn't in the right place!

Im a quite "wet behind the ears" electrician, qualified about a year ago and recently changed firms. New firm is getting me to do board changes, often without a prior EICR which my previous firm always did first.

My understanding is when finding conditions during the testing following CU change that would warrant a C2, the client should be made aware and to either have the conditions rectified or the affected circuit left disconnected. Now the boss is saying if they don't want it done just put these in the comments on existing installation section of the certificate because we can't leave things turned off, and "you can't put a gun to someone's head and have the work done" but again I'm of the understanding this doesn't absolve you from any comeback if something untoward was to happen.

Just wondering what people do in these situations as I'm not getting much help from anyone at my firm.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Octopus]

Your boss is correct that you can't leave circuits switched off and highlighting them on the EIC is the thing to do .............. obviously if its effectively a C1 you should deal with it on the spot

Can you give examples?

 

[Pete999]

First post so bare with me, and apologies if this isn't in the right place!

Im a quite "wet behind the ears" electrician, qualified about a year ago and recently changed firms. New firm is getting me to do board changes, often without a prior EICR which my previous firm always did first.

My understanding is when finding conditions during the testing following CU change that would warrant a C2, the client should be made aware and to either have the conditions rectified or the affected circuit left disconnected. Now the boss is saying if they don't want it done just put these in the comments on existing installation section of the certificate because we can't leave things turned off, and "you can't put a gun to someone's head and have the work done" but again I'm of the understanding this doesn't absolve you from any comeback if something untoward was to happen.

Just wondering what people do in these situations as I'm not getting much help from anyone at my firm.

Thanks in advance.

Does this firm you work for allow you to do any testing prior to changing the Cu? or is it a case of change the CU, and hope there aren't faults that can or will cause any nuisance tripping of the RCD or RCBOs, because anyone, be it an individual or company, changing a CU without any prior testing, is asking for trouble in my opinion.

 

[Andy78]

Depends what the issue is. There's not many C2 faults I would be happy to energise with and just leave a note on the cert. You are leaving record that you have not followed the regs and left a potentially unsafe situation.
Customers should be made aware of the requirements of the regs and the limitations of your work.

 

[oracle]

With a CU change surely it should be given an EIC as the whole installation is affected and circuits that complied with older fuses or breakers may no longer comply.

This is why a CCU change is not considered Minor Works

 

[Pete999]

First post so bare with me, and apologies if this isn't in the right place!

Im a quite "wet behind the ears" electrician, qualified about a year ago and recently changed firms. New firm is getting me to do board changes, often without a prior EICR which my previous firm always did first.

My understanding is when finding conditions during the testing following CU change that would warrant a C2, the client should be made aware and to either have the conditions rectified or the affected circuit left disconnected. Now the boss is saying if they don't want it done just put these in the comments on existing installation section of the certificate because we can't leave things turned off, and "you can't put a gun to someone's head and have the work done" but again I'm of the understanding this doesn't absolve you from any comeback if something untoward was to happen.

Just wondering what people do in these situations as I'm not getting much help from anyone at my firm.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry Mate, was going to mention something, but in reality it doesn't answer your questions. It's an observation really, your firm will have given the client a quotation, for the CU change and nothing else, any fault or anomalies that crop up during and after the change can be seen by some clients as a scam to get more work, seen this lots of times, like I said doesn't answer your questions.

 

[Andy5678]

Do all your tests and inspections before you rip out the old Consumer unit. If there is anything major that needs repaired that you can’t fix there and then, put it back together and inform your boss.

 

[Deleted account]

I normally give the customer the option of an EICR prior to CU change at an aditional cost of £150-£200ish

But....

If I don't do the EICR I do as Andy 5678 recommends. I would do a visual inspection throughout and a few basic insulation and fault loop testing before starting to dismantle old board.

In the quote I state this is what I would do and if any issues where discovered they would need to be rectified before continuing. If they didn't want to,proceed at this point I would stop without any charge to the customer.

I have always done this and only ever had 2 customers say they didn't want to continue and one of them came back a week later and instructed me to make the issues right and change the board.

Under normal circumstances I cannot see the point of charging the customer an extra £150-£200 for an EICR prior to a board change.

 

[Whitbreadz]

Thanks for the replies all!

It's pretty much change the board and hope! Obviously a full EIC is completed along with associated tests.

An example of a recent one that is somewhat trivial and up to personal opinion, would be the decorator moving all the downstairs lights and you can see connectors pushed up in to the ceiling, too short to bring down to test or rectify, with no enclosure. In my opinion that contravenes 526.1 (I believe?) Basic insulation outside of an enclosure. I'd classify that as C2. Now according to the customer that was done about 15 years ago, there's no sign of heating of what I could see of the connectors, so in theory should be ok for a while to come? The customer was informed and wasn't interested in having it done as it had been fine for ages apparently.

Now I put a note on the EIC in comments on existing section, but I was reading the best practice guide number 1 on CU changes last night and it states that a "disclaimer does not absolve the installer from responsibility" you're meant to carry out a risk assessment, but if it's still classified as a C2 you still have to leave it disconnected. Now my boss isn't the sort to do a risk assessment, as he thinks it's trivial and has "been in the game too long to worry About things like that" So back to my original point, where does responsibility stand in situations like the above?

Also Paignton Pete, I like the idea of doing the tests before doing the board change! What sort of depth and sampling are you doing on the pre change tests?

 

[Ian1981]

You can’t leave potentially dangerous defects and issue an EIC.
Examples are where no protective bonding conductors are present, the client should be informed that the CU change can not go ahead until protective bonding is carried out.
If the client refuses then the proposed works do not happen.

 

[Risteard]

Depends what the issue is. There's not many C2 faults I would be happy to energise with and just leave a note on the cert. You are leaving record that you have not followed the regs and left a potentially unsafe situation.
Customers should be made aware of the requirements of the regs and the limitations of your work.

You have followed the Regs. The distribution board replacement is what you have done. You aren't responsible for the entire installation.

 

[telectrix]

You have followed the Regs. The distribution board replacement is what you have done. You aren't responsible for the entire installation.[/QUOTE]
he is responsible if he has energised any circuit with a C1 or a C2 applicable.

 

[telectrix]

he is responsible if he has energised any circuit with a C1 or a C2 applicable.

 

[Markyd]

dont suppose you can name the company.....just so other people dont make the mistake of getting them to do any work on their property without doing it properly....Your Boss has a dangerous attitude

 

[oracle]

A CCU change requires a EIC not an EICR. As others have already shown, before the CCU is changed the installation condition must be inspected and tested.

 

[Octopus]

A CCU change requires a EIC not an EICR. As others have already shown, before the CCU is changed the installation condition must be inspected and tested.

Complete with sensible and thorough use of the comments box ......

If the decorator hadn’t removed the down lights you wouldn’t have seen the issue either

 

[Deleted account]

Thanks for the replies all!

It's pretty much change the board and hope! Obviously a full EIC is completed along with associated tests.

An example of a recent one that is somewhat trivial and up to personal opinion, would be the decorator moving all the downstairs lights and you can see connectors pushed up in to the ceiling, too short to bring down to test or rectify, with no enclosure. In my opinion that contravenes 526.1 (I believe?) Basic insulation outside of an enclosure. I'd classify that as C2. Now according to the customer that was done about 15 years ago, there's no sign of heating of what I could see of the connectors, so in theory should be ok for a while to come? The customer was informed and wasn't interested in having it done as it had been fine for ages apparently.

Now I put a note on the EIC in comments on existing section, but I was reading the best practice guide number 1 on CU changes last night and it states that a "disclaimer does not absolve the installer from responsibility" you're meant to carry out a risk assessment, but if it's still classified as a C2 you still have to leave it disconnected. Now my boss isn't the sort to do a risk assessment, as he thinks it's trivial and has "been in the game too long to worry About things like that" So back to my original point, where does responsibility stand in situations like the above?

Also Paignton Pete, I like the idea of doing the tests before doing the board change! What sort of depth and sampling are you doing on the pre change tests?

One test per circuit at what I suspect is the furthest point for loop imedance. And basic I.r test earth to live conductors only.
If they are ok I continue with full board change and full testing.
However issues still may occur in the full testing, so customer is always made aware of this.

 

[Nigel]

I think your new boss is 100% correct.

You are not responsible for the parts of the installation you have not touched. Remember you are improving things. Carrying out an EICR before will do what exactly ?

Complete the works and although I would not leave a C1 unaddressed I would note it all on the EIC. That is what they ‘comments on existing installation’ box is for.

 

[telectrix]

disagree there essex. if you leave a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation and someone gets hurt/killed as a result, it's not much use before the judge, saying " it was dangerous, but i wrote it on the certificate".

 

[Nigel]

disagree there essex. if you leave a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation and someone gets hurt/killed as a result, it's not much use before the judge, saying " it was dangerous, but i wrote it on the certificate".

So do you isolate circuits at survey? “Sorry luv this is clearly dangerous so I am going to have to pull the main fuse.”?

Or do you price to bring the whol installation up to current Standards and then push the cost of doing any improvement out of reach?

It will completely stack up in court. It is what it is designed for. A section to detail clearly what the state of the other parts of the installation is.

 

[Ian1981]

If changing the Cu and you complete a zs test on say a radial circuit that you have connected into the Cu, it turns out that there is no cpc present at the point of test, surely it can’t be suggested that you just connect the circuit anyway and leave a comment on the EIC?
The comments box is for non compliance’s to be noted that do not give rise to potential danger and immediate danger.

 

[Deleted account]

Regs wise I think you are correct teletrix. You shouldn't leave an installation with a potentially dangerous situation after a cu change,

however I think Essex is also correct. I cannot force people to get work done they don't want or cannot afford done.

At the end of the day a new up to date residual current protected board is going to make the whole installation safer under fault conditions that it was before. So in court you can explain that to a judge if nessissary and show your notes on the eir (comments on existing installation).
The potentially dangerous situation is going to be there if you do the work or don't. You haven't made it worst, in fact you've made it safer and made the customer aware.

 

[Nigel]

If changing the Cu and you complete a zs test on say a radial circuit that you have connected into the Cu, it turns out that there is no cpc present at the point of test, surely it can’t be suggested that you just connect the circuit anyway and leave a comment on the EIC?
The comments box is for non compliance’s to be noted that do not give rise to potential danger and immediate danger.

There are two boxes. One for non-conformances and one for comments on the existing installation.

 

[Ian1981]

There are two boxes. One for non-conformances and one for comments on the existing installation.

No, one is for comments on the existing installation and one is for departures which if you as the installer have departed from bs7671 then you must record this on the EIC

 

[Nigel]

No, one is for comments on the existing installation and one is for departures which if you as the installer have departed from bs7671 then you must record this on the EIC

Same thing. You are being silly.

 

[Flanders]

This is why an installation should be checked before blindly going in a changing a board, As it was said early carry out the testing before you do the board change , if there are any issues Like no bonding, low IR , broken ring , damaged accessories contact the boss so he she can explain to the customer the risks and cost .

 

[Ian1981]

Same thing. You are being silly.

No silly is going out now and trick or treating at 36 years old getting dragged along by my 4 year old boy

 

[Deleted account]

No silly is going out now and trick or treating at 36 years old getting dragged along by my 4 year old boy

Get away. It's you doing the trick or treat dragging your boy. Go on admit it.

 

[Ian1981]

Get away. It's you doing the trick or treat dragging your boy. Go on admit it.

Yep I’ll take all the good sweets too

 

[Ian1981]

Going back to the debate
A departure needs to comply with regulations 120.3 , 133.1.3 and 133.5 where as comments on the existing installation in the case of additions or alterations are regulation 644.1.2 ( 18th BBB)
Two completely different things.
Note 644.1.2 says any defect that is revealed during inspection and testing shall be corrected before the certificate is issue during alterations and additions

 

[Ian1981]

Going back to the debate
A departure needs to comply with regulations 120.3 , 133.1.3 and 133.5 where as comments on the existing installation in the case of additions or alterations are regulation 644.1.2 ( 18th BBB)
Two completely different things.
Note 644.1.2 says any defect that is revealed during inspection and testing shall be corrected before the certificate is issued after alterations or additional works and considering a Cu change is an alteration that requires certification, then it would fall into this regulation
See regulation 644 in general

 

[Deleted account]

Must be important to tell us twice!

 

[oracle]

Must be important to tell us twice!

Bang on mate!

 

[Flanders]

Bang on mate!

Sound like that the best way. turn on the electric and see if it goes Bang

 

[Deleted account]

Sound like that the best way. turn on the electric and see if it goes Bang

The bang test. The old fail safe method.

 

[oracle]

The bang test. The old fail safe method.

I know a wetpants shorts out water heater, boiler etc to "isolate" the supply.

 

[Andy78]

You have followed the Regs. The distribution board replacement is what you have done. You aren't responsible for the entire installation.

I was meaning 132.16
No alteration shall be carried out unless it has been ascertained that the rating and condition of any existing equipment will be adequate for the altered circumstances.

I take existing equipment to encompass final circuits and their condition in relation to safety. I wouldn't ignore the other part of that reg (not quoted) regarding earthing and bonding on a DB change so don't see that I can ignore the quoted part.


I also take note of the EAWR....

Regulation 4
(1) All systems shall at all times be of such construction as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger.
(2) As may be necessary to prevent danger, all systems shall be maintained so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, such danger.

 

[Risteard]

Note 644.1.2 says any defect that is revealed during inspection and testing shall be corrected before the certificate is issue during alterations and additions

Your certificate does not cover the existing installation, however. Your certificate should very clearly state that it is in respect of the replacement of the distribution board only. Disconnection times obviously need to be verified as part of this (i.e. Zs testing) - this doesn't mean that you have to tear apart existing circuits.

I've found circuits with the sheath not entering enclosures - therefore basic insulation is exposed. This is clearly a C2 defect, however it does not justify me refusing to re-energise the circuit. I simply need to make them aware of the issues, and what they do then is their own business. Obviously if there were exposed live parts or an immediate fire risk (i.e. a C1 issue) then I would not energise it in the interests of safety without addressing that (at least with a sticking plaster).

 

[Ian1981]

I think the moral of the story is a suitable assessment of the existing installation should be taken before you blindly go ahead and change a Cu.
This doesn’t mean necessarily that an eicr should be carried out, but suitable inspection be preformed, this is my opinion anyway.

 

[Ian1981]

Your certificate does not cover the existing installation, however. Your certificate should very clearly state that it is in respect of the replacement of the distribution board only. Disconnection times obviously need to be verified as part of this (i.e. Zs testing) - this doesn't mean that you have to tear apart existing circuits.

I've found circuits with the sheath not entering enclosures - therefore basic insulation is exposed. This is clearly a C2 defect, however it does not justify me refusing to re-energise the circuit. I simply need to make them aware of the issues, and what they do then is their own business. Obviously if there were exposed live parts or an immediate fire risk (i.e. a C1 issue) then I would not energise it in the interests of safety without addressing that (at least with a sticking plaster).

I stand by what I said.
If I did a pre test on say a water heater circuit and found that the cpc was not present due to say a breakage then I would not be energising that circuit

 

[Ian1981]

i stand by what I said in that for an example I would not energise a circuit which had a discontinuous cpc such as say a water heater circuit found during a pre work assessment

 

[Risteard]

i stand by what I said in that for an example I would not energise a circuit which had a discontinuous cpc such as say a water heater circuit found during a pre work assessment

Well that comes back to what I said about ensuring that ADS will operate, including Zs testing. Clearly if there is no cpc then ADS is out the window.

 

[Ffoeguk]

Electrical Safety First - Best Practice Guide 1
Answers all the questions posed here.
NICEIC - have related to these when doing yearly visits in the past to answer questions I have asked in the past