Does a CU swap require a full initial verification on all circuits before it can be energised?

[mainline]

Surely that is referring to the design process.

132.16 states: "No addition or alteration, temporary or permanent, shall be made to an existing installation, unless it has been ascertained that the rating and the condition of any existing equipment, including the distributor, will be adequate for the altered circumstances

 

[MJPD29]

Ah, right. The electrician refused to do the testing based on the C3. Said it failed outright.

Periodic inspection and testing every 12 months.

I admit it's a weird one. Just my own pondering whether the installer could have given permission to energize.

But that periodic testing is only as good as the day it's tested, and the eicr does not apply once the board has been changed. Much like the mot on your car. Except changing the board is like taking every single screw and bolt out of your car, putting them back in and not getting it checked. He couldn't give permission to energise whilst still following regulation.

 

[westward10]

What was this C3 and was this C3 from a previous EICR.

 

[BrianM]

But that periodic testing is only as good as the day it's tested, and the eicr does not apply once the board has been changed. Much like the mot on your car. Except changing the board is like taking every single screw and bolt out of your car, putting them back in and not getting it checked. He couldn't give permission to energise whilst still following regulation.

Unless he inspected and tested. Which he could have done. But didn't. (I still find no regulation supporting your view mind.)

 

[BrianM]

What was this C3 and was this C3 from a previous EICR.

The C3 was a 70-90mm gap between the existing conduit and the board. Planned to be sorted with boxing in later and grommets. Risk assessment done expected very low risk from the position of the board. Could not physically cause or contribute to an accident short of sticking a fork in it.

 

[MJPD29]

Unless he inspected and tested. Which he could have done. But didn't. (I still find no regulation supporting your view mind.)

You find no regulation that says you can't energise a circuit without testing being completed? I wont attempt to justify what I said, as I know i am correct. Scary to think anyone would consider energising anything without confirming its Sage