Replacing a rusty old garage CU

[Googleberry]

My question is that since this CU is a replacement for an existing unit, and is fed via an MCB from the house's CU, does it really require notification?

Try reading Schedule 2B.

The circuit's existing protection would remain unaffected.

You are proposing to change the device currently providing protection to the garage circuits for a different one. How on earth will the existing protection be unaffected?

It is the XLPE type, so I have no worries about the house CU MCB rating,

What about the temperature rating of what the cable is connected to or passes through?

and I agree that the double socket, presumably with built-in RCD, is a sloppy way to go compared with a garage 'CU' containing separate MCBs for lighting and ring.

Putting 'CU' in quotes like that won't make it less of a one.

It is my belief that when Part P refers to a 'Consumer Unit', it is in fact referring to a unit connected directly to the meter, i.e providing primary protection to the garage circuit.

Well you are wrong. It just refers to a consumer unit.

When connected via an MCB in the house CU, it would not in fact be acting as a 'Consumer Unit' in that sense.

I agree, but that "sense" as you call it is actually a nonsensical invention of yours, so your argument collapses. It would be acting as a consumer unit because that's what it ******* well is.

Protection is unaffected as this is provided by the house CU's MCB.

Protection of what is unaffected? What is the house CU MCB protecting?

The important thing to note is that this is not in any way going to adversely affect the safety of the garage circuit. Quite the contrary in fact!

It's gratifying to know that you have all the necessary test equipment which you will need to make sure that you are not in any way going to adversely affect the safety of the garage circuits.

Indeed it is, and much of it calibrated by the NPL, not that such accuracy is required for house electrics!
This work does NOT change the device currently providing protection to the garage circuit. This is and will remain provided by the 32A MCB in the house CU. As far as the lighting circuit is concerned, that does not require
Remember that there is nothing stopping me from adding extra lighting or sockets, and I can add extra fuses as required for spurs etc. It makes no difference whether a 'fuse' is a wire device or an MCB.
Putting CU in quotes does make it 'less of one' for the reasons outlined. e.g. if I were to put in a tripple socket as a spur, I would add an in-line fuse if one is not incorporated in the sockets. However, I could install a suitable MCB in a box if I wanted to.
I think you need to look at the definition of a 'Consumer Unit'. A box with two fuses and a switch does not a consumer unit make! It's only a consumer unit when used as one.

The law really is an ass if it seeks to prevent people from adding safety!

Please show us where the law prevents you from making an electrical installation safer.

It allows other work that is potentially more dangerous for pity's sake!

As it doesn't disallow anything it's hard to see how that can be, but feel free to show us where you think it does.[/quote]

Wow! That's a lot of questions! Here goes...
1. I read it - still not convinced. Semantics and all that.
2. No. See 7 for more.
3. Good point. I'll look into the temperature rating issue. If it's a problem, I'll use a lower rated MCB as I don't need 32A.
4. When is a CU not a CU? When it's a Switched FCU of course!
I can't use a switched FCU as a CU because it has not been designed for the job, probably won't accept meter tails and besides, wire fuses are no longer acceptable for the job, but I can use a CU as an SFCU, because that’s effectively what it is!
5. See 4.
6 . See 4, and please don't swear.
7. The house CU MCB is protecting the SWA to the garage, and would be adequate for the whole circuit if the SWA simply connected to a standard ring. Of course, there is the lighting circuit, but that could be wired via a 5A FCU. In fact it is, albeit a rusty one!
8. If the law makes it unduly expensive or inconvenient for someone to add a safety device, i.e. makes them pay for a registered electrician to do a job they can safely do themselves, or makes them go through all the rigmarole and expense of getting PD inspectors in, they either won't do it or they will ignore the rules.
Is there any evidence that Part P works? I understand that the death rate went up after it came into force!
Can we please keep the size of posts down? I really don't fancy responding to this if it comes back at me broken down into forty bullet points!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I read it - still not convinced. Semantics and all that.

Then you clearly have reading difficulties, with which I sympathise, but I don't think they exempt you from your obligations under the law.

2. No. See 7 for more.

I have no idea what that means - see my final comment.

4. When is a CU not a CU? When it's a Switched FCU of course!
I can't use a switched FCU as a CU because it has not been designed for the job, probably won't accept meter tails and besides, wire fuses are no longer acceptable for the job, but I can use a CU as an SFCU, because that’s effectively what it is!

No - an FCU is not a CU, and a CU is not an FCU, no matter how you use either of them. Stop being a tw@ and trying to look for some semantic wriggles which only make sense to you and accept that a CU is a CU, end of.

5. See 4.

I have no idea what that means - see my final comment.

6 . See 4, and please don't swear.

I have no idea what that means - see my final comment.

7. The house CU MCB is protecting the SWA to the garage, and would be adequate for the whole circuit if the SWA simply connected to a standard ring.

No, because that would not be a valid final circuit. It would be fine if it continued as a compliant radial.

Of course, there is the lighting circuit, but that could be wired via a 5A FCU. In fact it is, albeit a rusty one!

No, it's wired from a consumer unit, not a fused connection unit.

8. If the law makes it unduly expensive or inconvenient for someone to add a safety device, i.e. makes them pay for a registered electrician to do a job they can safely do themselves, or makes them go through all the rigmarole and expense of getting PD inspectors in, they either won't do it or they will ignore the rules.

That's their choice, but not one which proves they are right to claim that the law prevents them.

Is there any evidence that Part P works?

None that I know of.

I understand that the death rate went up after it came into force!

The death rates were and are statistically insignificant, so no rise or fall could ever be proved.

Can we please keep the size of posts down? I really don't fancy responding to this if it comes back at me broken down into forty bullet points!

And I don't see why I should have to waste my time scrolling up and down, trying to work out what your various numbers refer to when my post was not numbered, and when you clearly want to respond to a series of points but can't be bothered to do it properly.

 

[Aragorn84]

Just fit the damn thing, accept its probably a little dodgy, and if anyone in officialdom ever does ask any questions then you can argue the semantics with them.

I very much doubt anyone will even notice, never mind ask any questions.

 

[Googleberry]

Just fit the damn thing, accept its probably a little dodgy, and if anyone in officialdom ever does ask any questions then you can argue the semantics with them.

I very much doubt anyone will even notice, never mind ask any questions.

I think you're right on the button there - the voice of reason! I've looked very carefully, and there's no manufacturing date on the box or any of the components therein, not now anyway, so I guess it must have been fitted a few years ago!

The important thing is that it's installed correctly and a big improvement on what was there before. I'll check the temperature rating issue that was alluded to earlier, and de-rate the house CU MCB if required - I'm never going to need 32A, so there's no problem there.

 

[Googleberry]

I read it - still not convinced. Semantics and all that.

Then you clearly have reading difficulties, with which I sympathise, but I don't think they exempt you from your obligations under the law.

2. No. See 7 for more.

I have no idea what that means - see my final comment.

4. When is a CU not a CU? When it's a Switched FCU of course!
I can't use a switched FCU as a CU because it has not been designed for the job, probably won't accept meter tails and besides, wire fuses are no longer acceptable for the job, but I can use a CU as an SFCU, because that’s effectively what it is!

No - an FCU is not a CU, and a CU is not an FCU, no matter how you use either of them. Stop being a tw@ and trying to look for some semantic wriggles which only make sense to you and accept that a CU is a CU, end of.

5. See 4.

I have no idea what that means - see my final comment.

6 . See 4, and please don't swear.

I have no idea what that means - see my final comment.

7. The house CU MCB is protecting the SWA to the garage, and would be adequate for the whole circuit if the SWA simply connected to a standard ring.

No, because that would not be a valid final circuit. It would be fine if it continued as a compliant radial.

Of course, there is the lighting circuit, but that could be wired via a 5A FCU. In fact it is, albeit a rusty one!

No, it's wired from a consumer unit, not a fused connection unit.

8. If the law makes it unduly expensive or inconvenient for someone to add a safety device, i.e. makes them pay for a registered electrician to do a job they can safely do themselves, or makes them go through all the rigmarole and expense of getting PD inspectors in, they either won't do it or they will ignore the rules.

That's their choice, but not one which proves they are right to claim that the law prevents them.

Is there any evidence that Part P works?

None that I know of.

I understand that the death rate went up after it came into force!

The death rates were and are statistically insignificant, so no rise or fall could ever be proved.

Can we please keep the size of posts down? I really don't fancy responding to this if it comes back at me broken down into forty bullet points!

And I don't see why I should have to waste my time scrolling up and down, trying to work out what your various numbers refer to when my post was not numbered, and when you clearly want to respond to a series of points but can't be bothered to do it properly.

Well I'm sorry to have put you through all that then. However, if you had resisted the personal insults, then I might have shown more tolerance for your pedantry. The law is supposed to be there for a purpose, and when that purpose is not served, there is no justification in the law - extreme example: child in car choking to death; hospital half-a-mile away; speed limit 30mph; road empty, whatcha gonna do? 30mph? Not me!

Thanks for your input.

Edit: Further thought: what is this law for anyway when the death rate was "insignificant"?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, if you had resisted the personal insults, then I might have shown more tolerance for your pedantry.

You would have been better off resisting your utterly fatuous notion that a CU is not a CU if it isn't supplied by meter tails.

As for pedantry - I merely answered and replied accurately and truthfully. In my experience people who dismiss that as pedantry are careless and sloppy and wish to ignore and distort facts which they do not care for.

The law is supposed to be there for a purpose, and when that purpose is not served, there is no justification in the law

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean the law is not there.

- extreme example: child in car choking to death; hospital half-a-mile away; speed limit 30mph; road empty, whatcha gonna do? 30mph? Not me!

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that the speed limit is not 30mph.

Edit: Further thought: what is this law for anyway when the death rate was "insignificant"?

For the aggrandisement of NICEIC and the ECA.

 

[Googleberry]

Edit: Further thought: what is this law for anyway when the death rate was "insignificant"?

For the aggrandisement of NICEIC and the ECA.

I agree with you there!

 

[skenk]

I'm no fan of bull**** laws either but unless you have properly tested it you don't know if it's 'installed correctly' or not. Is the SWA visible along it's entire length? Whats the earth loop impedance? Is your bonding up to scratch?

 

[1john]

I'm no fan of bull**** laws either but unless you have properly tested it you don't know if it's 'installed correctly' or not. Is the SWA visible along it's entire length? Whats the earth loop impedance? Is your bonding up to scratch?

HAHA the guy was gonna do the job anyway, he just wanted someone to say he could do it, irrespective of his capabilities of ensuring it is safe.
Like most posts by incompetent people, they just want to be told they can do it, they dont care if it is safe or not, they think that because they are installing new stuff it must be safer. No consideration is taken in to account of the condition of the whole installation, weather or not it complies and they dont even know what disconnection times are.

 

[Aragorn84]

Assuming there IS a fault with the current installation, and he doesnt discover it because he doesnt have the kit or knowledge, is there really any way that swapping the crappy old box out for a modern CU would make the installation LESS safe?

 

[chapeau]

Nope, which is the point the original poster is making. If he puts an RCD in the garage circuit where there was not one before it has to make it safer.

 

[RF Lighting]

"Has to"? Are you certain?

What if the RCD is duff straight out of the box?

 

[chapeau]

Well, I suppose if we are arguing about semantics, if an RCD is duff out of the box is it not an RCD

 

[RF Lighting]

Dont be stupid

 

[chapeau]

I promise you I am not stupid.

What does 'duff' mean?