Convert a twin RCD split load consumer unit?

[SimonH2]

I'm just going from previous posts in here that suggest some schemes have their own rules which go beyond what building regs, "part P", and BS7671 require. I vaguely recall MIs being one such area - BS7671 allowing deviation from them with one scheme not permitting it.
But if membership of scheme "Foo" required that all CUs installed had to be pink, and you were caught fitting a white one, then you could be thrown out of the scheme. Once out of the scheme then you'd lose the ability to self notify and then be at a disadvantage with legally notifiable work - and also at a marketing disadvantage given the "you'll suffer fire and pestilence* if you don't use our members for all your lecky work" message they put out to the non-technical public.

Back on topic, BS7671 doesn't allow mix and match, so if scheme "Foo" mandates full compliance with BS7671 then you can't mix and match. But absent that rule, you could, for example, remove all breakers and main switch from a CU, and fix all new RCBOs and a new mainswitch to the DIN** rail (and probably a new live busbar) with pretty well zero risk of any problems. So scheme member is required to change the box and notify, a non-scheme member is legally allowed to depart from that and change the components - and not notify***.

* OK, so that's a bit of an exaggeration

** Note that DIN rail is (or should be) made to a defined set of dimensions.

*** Note, not notify - that's different from suggesting any shortcuts in testing etc.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm just going from previous posts in here that suggest some schemes have their own rules which go beyond what building regs, "part P", and BS7671 require.

Perhaps a misunderstanding - unless a specific example is given.

 

[kai]

Part P is and remains a great Money Spinner for both Building Control and the Sparky trade. It adds no TRUE value to the processes, especially where a consumer unit change is required. Indeed the biggest money spinner these days are consumer unit changes. (Remember the Testing was always necessary, even before Part P). Just look how many consumer unit fires have happened under Part P, where relatively few happened before!
If I were elected Prime Minister, I would axe the Red Tape masquerading under the name of Part P with immediate effect.

 

[SimonH2]

... I would axe the Red Tape masquerading under the name of Part P with immediate effect.

"Part P" isn't a problem, it only says that work must be safe ! It's the vested interests playing on public ignorance of the regulations to make a quick buck that are the problem. I recall someone here used to post a lick to an amusing video making a caricature of the problem.

 

[PBC_1966]

There's no difference in the technical skills required in terms of circuit testing etc - just a difference in the legal notification requirements.

Which just goes to show how daft it is. You can shuffle around the circuit breakers and the busbars all you like and reconnect them to the existing circuits and that's not notifiable, but if you replace the unit as a whole then it becomes notifiable and that's anything from £100 to £400 to the local authority, if for some reason one wants to comply wih this idiotic law.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

But "Part P" and building regs are different things.

Part P is a building regulation, so don't see why things are different?

I'm guessing that you are a member of an approved scheme, and that you'll be bound to follow the rules of that scheme which are not the same as the law as it applies.

I am but their requirements regarding the building regulation part p, is no different to those that have to be complied to by one who is not a scheme member.

The specific detail is that notification is only required (legally, your scheme may have other views) for addition of circuits and replacing a CU -

They don't

so replacing MCBs with RCBOs is not notifiable.

Maybe it is not, but I said in my view it should, not in the view of part p or my scheme provider.

There's no difference in the technical skills required in terms of circuit testing etc - just a difference in the legal notification requirements.

That is my original point, there is a technical skill in the construction inspection,test and certification, when modifying the internal component of a board and changing the characteristics of the circuits/devices. It would only be a fool that would consider that the box enclosing these was the most important element of swapping over a consumer unit in the first place.

I know you could argue that strictly speaking that the part p process of notification does not stipulate that these kind of modifications (MCB-RCBO) applies. But the safety aspect still does. That was my point and my view is it should be notifiable!
I have the option with my scheme provider, if I wish to notify work that is not deemed notifiable I can. In these cases when swapping MCBs for RCBOs, I do choose that option, but that is a personal choice and the customer seems happy when they get the piece of paper.

 

[SimonH2]

Part P is a building regulation, so don't see why things are different?

OK, my sloppy wording. "Part P" and the notification requirements of the building regs are different. Part P says absolutely nothing whatsoever about notification, and doesn't require compliance with BS7671. I basically says nothing more that "it must be reasonably safe".

I'm guessing that you are a member of an approved scheme, and that you'll be bound to follow the rules of that scheme which are not the same as the law as it applies.

I am but their requirements regarding the building regulation part p, is no different to those that have to be complied to by one who is not a scheme member.

Which scheme, and do they have anything to say about compliance with BS7671 ?

The specific detail is that notification is only required (legally, your scheme may have other views) for addition of circuits and replacing a CU -

They don't

In the context of this thread, the other two notification requirements are irrelevant. In regards a CU, no notification is required unless you replace the CU or add circuits. Thus, as you agree, we have the fairly illogical situation where I could shuffle things around, change components, etc without notification - as long as I don't replace the tin can they are sat in.

so replacing MCBs with RCBOs is not notifiable.

Maybe it is not, but I said in my view it should

And then we get back to where should the notification requirements stop ? Should we not require notification when adding sockets in a kitchen for example ? Or adding sockets or lights outside ? That would increase the scope for rogues to fleece the public in the manner of that cartoon I mentioned earlier !

But mostly, I think we are violently agreeing on the logic (or lack thereof) of allowing internal CU mods but not replacing the box.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I have said before that I was under the impression from the start that registration and notification were introduced to control ancillary trades who do electrical work (kitchen fitters, plumbers etc.) and ensure they were competent to do it.

To remove kitchens from the list and so kitchen fitters from the requirements to register can only have been, in my view, the result of lobbying by the big companies.

What is left can only be a reason not to scrap the scheme(s) altogether and to save face.

 

[SimonH2]

I mostly agree with that. However, I suspect the larger outfits probably had no problem because they'd be big enough to have people on (at least) defined scope schemes without it being a significant cost - and they possibly saw it as a benefit since it would put the smaller companies at a disadvantage. The lobbying was probably more from smaller companies (via trade groups).

My own feeling is, that apart from such lobbying, TPTB probably had quite a bit of feedback along the lines of :
a) It's driving work underground so making it harder to monitor.
b) It's causing issues of it's own - eg granny putting an extension lead across the door because it's now too expensive to get an extra socket added where it's needed.
c) with b) being contributed to by charlatans using "Part P" as an excuse to further fleece the public.

 

[PrenticeBoyofDerry]

And then we get back to where should the notification requirements stop ? Should we not require notification when adding sockets in a kitchen for example ? Or adding sockets or lights outside ? That would increase the scope for rogues to fleece the public in the manner of that cartoon I mentioned earlier !

In my opinion all electrical work should be accountable for and undertaken by a responsible and competent person who has the skill set to perform the required tasks to design, install, inspect, test, document and prove what they have assembled is safe to put into service.
Who that is governed is another question, as it would seem regardless of what is required/requested/demanded upon the people that have been bothered to get qualified/gain skill/registered/approved/insured etc. There will always be those rogues that exist and the foolish/ignorant public that trust and employ them!