Uncertified consumer unit replacement

[Stoday]

Maybe, then, some of those here will have to modify some of the responses they give. It seems quite common for a poster to say that he's going to replace a CU (or whatever) 'and then get an electrician to test and certify it', and commonly will get at least one reply along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "you cannot do it that way" - but, in view of the above, maybe they might need to re-think their answers a little?

No reason why a competent DIYer should not sign the design and installation boxes in the EIC, leaving a registered electrcian to do the testing and to sign the appropriate box. It has to be notified though unless all the signatories are registered.

In the case of this thread the registered electrician can sign all the boxes because he's installed the CU, so notification is not required.

I can't see why any rethink is needed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Maybe, then, some of those here will have to modify some of the responses they give. It seems quite common for a poster to say that he's going to replace a CU (or whatever) 'and then get an electrician to test and certify it', and commonly will get at least one reply along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "you cannot do it that way" - but, in view of the above, maybe they might need to re-think their answers a little?

No.

That advice is given when what the person replacing the CU thinks will happen is that he'll replace the CU without notifying and then get an electrician to sign certificates to say that he did it.

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe, then, some of those here will have to modify some of the responses they give. It seems quite common for a poster to say that he's going to replace a CU (or whatever) 'and then get an electrician to test and certify it', and commonly will get at least one reply along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "you cannot do it that way" - but, in view of the above, maybe they might need to re-think their answers a little?

....In the case of this thread the registered electrician can sign all the boxes because he's installed the CU, so notification is not required.
I can't see why any rethink is needed.

I'm becoming increasing uncomfortable trying to 'defend' what my friend the Devils' Advocate said, but I don't really understand your argument. You say that 'in the case of the thread' (and hence, presumably, other similar situations) the electrician could do as some have suggested, but you don't see the need for a re-think of advice that it can't be done like that. I must be missing something.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

No. That advice is given when what the person replacing the CU thinks will happen is that he'll replace the CU without notifying and then get an electrician to sign certificates to say that he did it.

If I understand correctly, what has been suggested is that it could be argued that the act of disconnection and reconnection as part of the testing (plus maybe removal and replacement of a screw or four) constitute installing the CU, just as if the person in question had removed the CU just before the electrician had arrived.

I'm tiring of having to say it, but this approach was not my idea, and I don't want to advocate trying to use it!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

I'm tiring of having to say it, but this approach was not my idea, and I don't want to advocate trying to use it!

Kind Regards, John.

Yes, you do keep saying this, John - and we get it - it was not your suggestion.......it was mine!

You haven't responded to my post, though.

My suggestion is that you could disconnect all circuits from the CU and re-install it (as new), running all necessary 'Initial Verification' Inspection and Testing.

This is nothing like conducting a PIR on an existing CU/installation, which has a totally different approach altogether.

An electrician would not disconnect all circuits from a CU during a PIR - whatever would he need to do this for?
You could actually create more problems than you solve.

So my suggestion is valid - and no, it can't be applied to other scenarios and 'testing' other peoples work.

The electrician would be re-installing the CU as if he'd just bought it, and installing it like he would any other CU.

 

[Electrifying]

In the case of this thread the registered electrician can sign all the boxes because he's installed the CU, so notification is not required.

I can't see why any rethink is needed.

It still has to be notified.....through his 'scheme'.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No. That advice is given when what the person replacing the CU thinks will happen is that he'll replace the CU without notifying and then get an electrician to sign certificates to say that he did it.

If I understand correctly, what has been suggested is that it could be argued that the act of disconnection and reconnection as part of the testing (plus maybe removal and replacement of a screw or four) constitute installing the CU, just as if the person in question had removed the CU just before the electrician had arrived.

Whether the idea has any merit is debatable, but as you say, what Electrifying suggested was that the electrician de-install the CU, test the circuits, and re-install the CU.

That is not what a person replacing a CU thinks will happen when the electrician arrives to inspect and certify his work, so advice along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "you cannot do it that way" is correct.

 

[JohnW2]

Whether the idea has any merit is debatable, but as you say, what Electrifying suggested was that the electrician de-install the CU, test the circuits, and re-install the CU.
That is not what a person replacing a CU thinks will happen when the electrician arrives to inspect and certify his work, so advice along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "you cannot do it that way" is correct.

I can't argue with that.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

You haven't responded to my post, though.

Apologies. This has been a fast moving thread and I've been intermittently out of touch with it - and I completely overlooked to the post to which you are creferring.

My suggestion is that you could disconnect all circuits from the CU and re-install it (as new), running all necessary 'Initial Verification' Inspection and Testing.
This is nothing like conducting a PIR on an existing CU/installation, which has a totally different approach altogether.
An electrician would not disconnect all circuits from a CU during a PIR - whatever would he need to do this for?
You could actually create more problems than you solve.

Yes, I accept all that. One would have to do a bit more 'disconnecting' than for a PIR - although the 'thorough PIR' you refered to in that post I overlooked does inevitably require a fair bit of disconnecting.

I'll leave for others to ponder and decide whether total disconnection is actually necessary before one can reasonably claim to have (re-)installed something.

So my suggestion is valid - and no, it can't be applied to other scenarios and 'testing' other peoples work. The electrician would be re-installing the CU as if he'd just bought it, and installing it like he would any other CU.

I certainly never suggested that your suggestion was not valid (and agree that it was a good realistic/pragmatic suggestion in the circumstances described) , but merely was interested to hear what others would think about attemts to invoke that approach more widely.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Electrifying]

Yes, I accept all that. One would have to do a bit more 'disconnecting' than for a PIR - although the 'thorough PIR' you refered to in that post I overlooked does inevitably require a fair bit of disconnecting.Kind Regards, John.

I don't understand why you think a thorough PIR would require more dismantling of the CU.
I can't think of a reason why you would disconnect any circuits from the CU during a PIR - (except for Ring Final Conductors, of course. or bad test results requiring further, individual testing.) .

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I accept all that. One would have to do a bit more 'disconnecting' than for a PIR - although the 'thorough PIR' you refered to in that post I overlooked does inevitably require a fair bit of disconnecting.Kind Regards, John.

I don't understand why you think a thorough PIR would require more dismantling of the CU.

As you can see above, I actually said the opposite of that - that disconnection/re-installation would require 'abit more' disconnection than a PIR, but you are probably right in saying that I have probably been understating the difference.

I can't think of a reason why you would disconnect any circuits from the CU during a PIR - (except for Ring Final Conductors, of course. or bad test results requiring further, individual testing.) .

Beyond the RFCs (which account for a significant proportion of the terminations in many CUs) I suppose it depends upon your practices and what you feel constitutes a 'thorough' PIR - e.g. whether you are happy to measure CPC continuity and/or R1+R2 with parallel CPC paths potentially present, and how you do your IR tests. However,as above, I concede that I have probably understated the amount of additional disconnection needed for the uninstall/re-install process.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Stoday]

In the case of this thread the registered electrician can sign all the boxes because he's installed the CU, so notification is not required.

I can't see why any rethink is needed.

It still has to be notified.....through his 'scheme'.

Careful! too much pedantry might turn you into a BAS. Moreover so might I...

It still has to be notified.....through his 'scheme'.

Where does the Approved Document say that?

Where does the Statutory Instrument on the Building Regulations say that?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/regulation/20/made

 

[Stoday]

Thanks for that BAS.

Interesting because when I built my house in 2005/6 local authority building control was not notified of anything. The reason was that the NHBC undertook the BC role.

 

[ebee]

so,
your house was built and local authority did not notice it?
must have been at night whilst they were not looking