4 Way C/U change...price? type?

[Dave 85]

Had a guy just ring up saying his old fuse board is melting. Its only 4 way, small house I guess, he's actually already sold the house so not particularly keen on shelling out ££££££'s on an upgrade but I said its the only option.
I'm inclined to go with an RCBO board, just wondered what kinda price I should charge him. I usually use a split load 10 way and charge £350
but seems pointless on 4 circs. The thing is, I reckon a decent 5/6 way RCBO board with 4 breakers (I prefer the wylex metal clads, they are taller) will set me back more than a 10 way split load. Cant get a price today obviously, its sunday. Any ideas what I should charge? I've said approx £280 but think maybe a bit more....

 

[fog]

Hi thought even if you change fuse board it has to be to 17th edition regs which means 2 rcds or an rcbo + rcd protection for the other circuits to ho ho avoid nuisance tripping, is this not correct?

 

[Guest55]

Hi thought even if you change fuse board it has to be to 17th edition regs which means 2 rcds or an rcbo + rcd protection for the other circuits to ho ho avoid nuisance tripping, is this not correct?

The regs require you to provide rcd protection to the circuits that need it.
The regs also require you to arrange protective devices in a manner that reduces inconvienience to the user in the event of a fault.
This can be achieved with 1 or 20 rcd's , there is no given number.

 

[Octopus]

The regs require you to provide rcd protection to the circuits that need it.
The regs also require you to arrange protective devices in a manner that reduces inconvienience to the user in the event of a fault.
This can be achieved with 1 or 20 rcd's , there is no given number.

So how can you achieve not inconviencing a client by installing only 1 RCD if the cables are buried within 50mm then??

 

[Guest55]

So how can you achieve not inconviencing a client by installing only 1 RCD if the cables are buried within 50mm then??

I never implied / suggested anything ? just stated the requirements from bs7671.
Maybe certain circuits in certain installations are surface fixed thus not requiring rcds ?
Or under the instruction of a skilled operative ?
Many variables.

 

[jdd]

In the real world, don't use one RCD.

 

[Guest55]

In the real world, don't use one RCD.

How many then ?

 

[jdd]

Dependent on the number of final circuits really. But as a good rule, a fault on a single final circuit shouldn't trip out the whole of the installation.

On a typical domestic installation, use a bit of common sense. A dual rcd con unit as a minimum, one rcd protecting down lights with up power and vice versa on the other rcd.

 

[Dave 85]

I asked elecsa tech support about this once, it was a flat with 4 circuits (one lighting) and they said yeah, single RCD board, fill yer boots. I'd do it again if I had to on a single lighting circuit flat but accept it is bad practice and would avoid if possible.

 

[joe j]

Re Paul m/buff 55. Sympathy with both sides, another grey area in regs. By having single lighting circuit departure from regs but is it required? How about single rcd incomer on TT systems?

 

[jdd]

S type RCD at front end on TT system.

 

[Tonkatoy27]

I asked elecsa tech support about this once, it was a flat with 4 circuits (one lighting) and they said yeah, single RCD board, fill yer boots. I'd do it again if I had to on a single lighting circuit flat but accept it is bad practice and would avoid if possible.

I recently talked to ELECSA tech support about providing RCD protection to a load of flats which all had 4 way boards with one rcbo for the shower. They said I couldn't swop out the main switch for one RCD and as far as the EICR was concerned, mark up lack of rcd on sockets etc as C3 so landlord hasn't bothered to do anything. Go figure.
Incidentally, it was my assessor I talked to about it who was the same one I've had a discussion with about installations needing one main switch. If I can't find a reg number I'll ask him agin in 2 weeks time when I see him.

 

[Tonkatoy27]

You've answered your own question there.
Because there is no reg that insists on only 1 main switch per installation.

Reg 537.1.4 A main linked switch shall be provided as near as practicable to the origin of every installation as a means of switching the supply on load and as a means of isolation.

This was the reg my ELECSA assessor pointed out when the subject came up.
Personally I think it's a sensible yet unpractical reg which has probably been broken by every spark on here........

 

[somersetsparks]

Reg 537.1.4 A main linked switch shall be provided as near as practicable to the origin of every installation as a means of switching the supply on load and as a means of isolation.

This was the reg my ELECSA assessor pointed out when the subject came up.
Personally I think it's a sensible yet unpractical reg which has probably been broken by every spark on here........

The only practical way of achieving this would be between the cut-out and meter, as with the off peak, it is switched from teleswitch/timeclock so has its own live tail. That side of the meter is not our responsibility.

 

[Guest55]

Reg 537.1.4 A main linked switch shall be provided as near as practicable to the origin of every installation as a means of switching the supply on load and as a means of isolation.

This was the reg my ELECSA assessor pointed out when the subject came up.
Personally I think it's a sensible yet unpractical reg which has probably been broken by every spark on here........

It still doesnt infer that there has to be only one switch , hence 3 CU's each with its own switch connected to the same supply still complies.

On a installation with solar panels feeding into the grid its impossible to fully isolate from only 1 point....

 

[Tonkatoy27]

It still doesnt infer that there has to be only one switch , hence 3 CU's each with its own switch connected to the same supply still complies.

On a installation with solar panels feeding into the grid its impossible to fully isolate from only 1 point....

As with all regs they are open to interpretation, I choose to interpret 'A main switch' as a single switch and so did the person I talked to at ELECSA. Surely the purpose of a main switch is to be able to turn it off and know that all of the installation is isolated. You or I may know which parts of the installation we are turning off but joe public may not when they are in a panic about the smoke coming out of a socket etc and it would be preferable for them to operate the clearly marked main switch and everything to be dead.

As for solar:
537.1.6 Where an installation is supplied from more than one source, a main switch shall be provided for each source of supply and a durable warning notice fixedin such a position that any person seeking to operate any of the main switches will be warned of the need to operate all such switches to achieve isolation of the installation.

Surely, if multiple main switches were allowed then a similar notice would be required informing that they existed and you'd have to turn them all off to achieve total isolation.

I know it's a pain in the butt but I think it's pretty clear. (I wish it wasn't cos it would make jobs a whole lot easier)