Fuse board / consumer unit change - EIC / EICR required?

[EFLImpudence]

Then, providing not a fraudulent move, the electrician is absolutely correct.

Out of interest what sort of thing would that be that prevents fitting a new CU?

 

[ericmark]

Out of interest what sort of thing would that be that prevents fitting a new CU?

It does not prevent, but it may delay, in the real world we tend to be living in the home which is having a CU fitted. So the EICR may change the order of events, if there is a fault on the sockets feeding the freezer, we may want to correct that before we fit the CU so the freezer is not off too long.

In the case of my parents house, the rewire was delayed until my dad had died, as he said I am not living in a building site. I was on tender hooks as I knew how bad the house was.

However since the work in this case has started, one is hardly going to delay the work due to a fault else where in the house, I would do some tests, to my mind this is a must before starting, if there is earth leakage over 9 mA per circuit that needs correcting first, to simply say sorry you can't run central heating as there it too high an earth leakage, I can book in the job in two weeks time, is not acceptable. Here showing testing whole house, but it takes seconds to test each circuit, however testing for earth leakage and insulation resistance is not all we do with an EICR, and I see no really reason why I should be removing down lights or sockets to inspect and test before swapping a CU.

If the 32 amp MCB/RCBO with two 2.5 mm² cables shows the cables are connected as a ring final, then can't see why before a CU change we need to check if the spurs from the ring final supply only one BS 1363 device. If it was a 32 amp supply before, and clearly part of a ring final, then re-connect as a ring final.

However if the pair of 2.5 mm² cables seem to be a ring final, but were connected to a 20 amp fuse, then I would replace with 20 amp RCBO until it was confirmed there are no unfused spurs supplying multi BS1363 devices.

 

[ebee]

Why only a few times?
People here make out it is standard practice and should always be done.

Yep it should always be done (or a major amount of said testing and inspecting accordingly - not just a few quick tests, once any defects remedied then you`d complete the EIC with knowledge that all important defects are remedied

 

[ebee]

Out of interest what sort of thing would that be that prevents fitting a new CU?

lack of earthing or bonding for a start, anything that might attract a C1, C2 or FI

 

[EFLImpudence]

lack of earthing or bonding for a start,

No - checking that and remedying if necessary is part of a CU change.

anything that might attract a C1, C2 or FI

A bit vague but not really - they could be discovered and rectified when fitting the new CU when of course there might be no faults.

So presumably doing it your way just means an additional day's work.

 

[EFLImpudence]

A few times I have advised an EICR prior to CU change

Yep it should always be done

 

[Murdochcat]

OP - have paid anything?

Are you in England or Wales?

Did the spark provide a quote or estimate prior to you agreeing for them to do the work?

 

[ebee]

Is that contracts of £35 and over/ 14 days cooling off legislation thingy and cancellation rights still relevant fropm a few years back? Trading Standards were quite hot on it once over. I gave contracts of £35 and over quite a few limitations and could be quite a hoop for trades to jump through. If it was not done properly then a trade simply could not charge you (in very many cases) and they could actually be prosecuted.

 

[ebee]

No - checking that and remedying if necessary is part of a CU change.

Changing a CU is changing a CU, if you include checks by I & T properly then you are (at least a large way) there ref an EICR so we are disagreeing about nothing or practically nothing anyway.
There are folk about who just change the CU, do not I & T to any great extent more than a casual glance, power on and then if it does not blow off the wall it is "OK".
We calls `em "the Wire, Fire and F O Brigade".

 

[baker332]

I've only asked to go ahead with the fuse board change atm and not agreed the EICR only quoted. As I originally asked for the quote to be split into two.

 

[Murdochcat]

I've only asked to go ahead with the fuse board change atm and not agreed the EICR only quoted. As I originally asked for the quote to be split into two.

So he owes you an EIC and if a scheme member Part P .......................... if not a scheme member he will need to see if your BCO will accept his EIC

 

[ericmark]

So he owes you an EIC and if a scheme member Part P .......................... if not a scheme member he will need to see if your BCO will accept his EIC

Not quite, that would seem the sensible thing, but it is down to the owner not the electrician if the electrician is not a scheme member.

So if the electrician gives you an EIC then if the LABC say no sorry not accepting that, the owner will need to pay for some one else selected by the LABC to inspect the work.

I think the LABC should issue permits to work, so if an electrician who is not a scheme member does notifiable work he would need the permit before starting so will know when the LABC is aware inspection and testing is down to them. But they don't, so if the electrician issues an EIC then he can simply say sorry I thought whole job was under LABC control, wash his hands and walk away.

If however he fails to issue an EIC then that failure shows he did not think he would get caught, and knew full well he should not have been doing the work.

I have seen electricians doing domestic who were not scheme members doing work for the disabled, as when for the disabled there are no charges to notify, but at least in Wales £100 plus vat to register means unless other work also being done, the scheme member route is the only real way, but in this case other notifiable work is being done.

However when I did electrical work through LABC they wanted to see my test gear, and my qualifications, I have talked many times on how they would not allow my son to sign the EIC as he only had his inspection and testing (C&G2391) I had to sign as I have a degree, it seemed clear the LABC inspector had no idea what a C&G2391 was.

 

[JohnW2]

Is that contracts of £35 and over/ 14 days cooling off legislation thingy and cancellation rights still relevant fropm a few years back? Trading Standards were quite hot on it once over.

I think that some such legislation still exists, but I don't know the numbers/details.

However, I think it was always the case that that 'clock' stops when the work is undertaken - i.e. once can;'t sign a contract, have the work done 7 days later and then decide that one wants to 'cancel' the contract (and not pay for the work)!

In other words, I think one was/is deemed to have finished any 'cooling off' if/when one allows the work to go ahead.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

My understanding , when the rules came out initially, yes the customer could disclaim for the tradesman to commence prior expiry of the cooling off period. However, the right to cancel still existed for any remaining works including any parts of works commenced/competed and the customer would still be responsible for paying tradesman for any such works completed, in whole or in part ..
Seemed a fair stance to me at the time.

In fact Trading Standards did remark on a case they had ongoing.

A tradesman (TS were satisfied themselves that the tradesman was a decent tradesman who was attempting to follow all of the rules in a proper and well intentioned fashion).
Went something along the lines of:-

Customer asks for estimated works (A) and requests commencement to allow job to start before expiracy of notice period. All good so far.
Then once work has started, asks for approx equal amount of additions (B) and tradesman estimates appropriately
But near completion of the whole works the customer complains to Trading Standards that the cooling of rules and waiver has not been followed therefore customer owes tradesman nothing for any of the other whole works.
Trading Standards are in themselves convinced that the customer has used the rules to end up not being responsible for any payment for any part payment.either..

Their opinion is that it is the intention if the customer to use the rules right from the outset to acheive the aim of having free work.
Despite that "sureity of intent" tthey told me that if the customer insisted then they would have to follow thru with legal proceedings against (in their opinion an honest trader being effectively conned by the customer) the poor tradesman. They would have no choice..
They warned me to guard against this by following all of the rules exactly to the letter.
Whatever actually then happened in this case or if any rule changes were then brought about i have absolutely no idea.

I have, long time thought, that yes there are trades from hell about in abundance there are also quite a few customers from hell about too.. not such a one sided thing as folk seem to think.

PS I did notice for quite a a while many trades not being aware of those "new rules" and/or simply ignoring them.

 

[baker332]

OK update here, FB change over the weekend, looks good.

Discussed EIC and compliance cert, suggested waiting for the EICR but suggested that all was required was the EIC, still pushed for EICR checks then issue cert.

Suggested that local building control will be coming this week to check other work alongside this, which they are, and they will ask for EIC and compliance cert and then suggested EIC cert there are costs involved, although this is a free document completed in 5 minutes.

I will ask again for the completed EIC along with compliance cert although the compliance cert will cost him around £60 due to being a member of a registered board costing circa £1000 per year.

This is a private job he completed for me not through his firm, if this makes a difference.