**CU Changes And YOU**

[High Tower]

Havent read the whole thread, but here is what i do,

Group L&N from upper lighting circuit, gropu the same for the lower, and test to 250v IR test, this usually shows any borrowed neutrals

 

[pete433]

5.3. However, circuits that are defective or noncompliant
with the requirements of BS 7671 in a
way that would result in real and immediate danger
must not be connected to the consumer unit.

How could you adhere to this regulation without inspection!!!! You can obviously can do an insulation test visually!!! Or do you just wait for the RCD to trip and then talk to the customer.

 

[Octopus]

"The is no legal requirement, and no regulation in BS 7671, requiring an existing installation to be upgraded to current standards"

Extract from Snags and Solutions Part 3 - Inspecting and testing from the NICEIC. (a book I would recommend that all new/recent qualifiers buy and read -its about £15.00 delivered and full of useful tips).

 

[malcolmsanford]

5.3. However, circuits that are defective or noncompliant
with the requirements of BS 7671 in a
way that would result in real and immediate danger
must not be connected to the consumer unit.

How could you adhere to this regulation without inspection!!!! You can obviously can do an insulation test visually!!! Or do you just wait for the RCD to trip and then talk to the customer.

Testing a circuit is completely different to carrying out a PIR. No one in here is disputing the fact that on a CU change your more than likely changing the characteristics of the protection and therefore you need to issue a EIC.

An EIC does not require you to carry out a full PIR on the existing installation, and it does not need to be upgraded to the current regs, it as simple as, this is now 3 of us telling you this.

So I assume you are considering that a lighting circuit that does not have a CPC and does not have any class I equipment fixed, is presenting a real and imidiate danger?

 

[pete433]

If you all can honestly say that the correct course of action is just to replace a consumer unit without prior inspection then good luck for the future, this is why the buisness i own is currently as always expanding as it has for the last fifteen years. The one man bands i can see have to make a living and not offering the correct solution to allow there property to be adherent and most of all safe for the future is a choice for your buisnesses. We offer a package that updates properties to regs we will not leave properties with faults that in the future could be an issue.

Strive to offer a quality solution is my advice and your buisnesses will move in the right direction, a full IEC makes you liable for all circuits after install. All the major electrical bodies will advise an inspection before CCU change, call them and they will confirm this.

 

[Ohmyword]

My 82 yr. old Mother has recently had a "walk-in shower" installed in her bathroom. If I can give you all the background info.; her place is an end of terrace, small, two-bed, "Wimpey" type building. (Purpose built estate of cheap, family housing).
It has a Wylex 604N consumer unit (therefor re-wirables and 60/80 Amp main switch) on 16.0m.m. tails and 10.0m.m. main earthing cables.
A 6.0m.m. T&E had been wired from this unit for a shower point at some time after original installation. This circuit was protected by a 40Amp circuit breaker within the 604N.
She was able to "get a grant" to have the shower room altered.
The "body" that arranged everything, use "their registered" contractors.
The firm that carried out the work "brought in" their own NICEIC contractor.
There were three circuits in the shower room; lighting, heater & shower.
I queried some of the decisions made and work carried out, but because, in theory, my Mother was not "the employer", there was little I could do.
They re-used the 6.0m.m. T&E for the new 9.5Kw shower unit. (It was only a 10/12mt length). They left the 604N consumer unit exactly as it was, but to "get over" the "every circuit in a bathroom should have 30mA RCD protection" recommendation, they installed a 80Amp-30mA RCD as the main incomer/isolator between meter and 604N.
I can only assume that the electrician provided his certificate for the shower room, with his test results, to the "builder" who would have passed this on to the "body" that arranged the grant monies?
This surely does not allow for the fact that if there is ANY problem with ANY circuit, it will "take out" the whole house electrics?

 

[Octopus]

My 82 yr. old Mother has recently had a "walk-in shower" installed in her bathroom. If I can give you all the background info.; her place is an end of terrace, small, two-bed, "Wimpey" type building. (Purpose built estate of cheap, family housing).
It has a Wylex 604N consumer unit (therefor re-wirables and 60/80 Amp main switch) on 16.0m.m. tails and 10.0m.m. main earthing cables.
A 6.0m.m. T&E had been wired from this unit for a shower point at some time after original installation. This circuit was protected by a 40Amp circuit breaker within the 604N.
She was able to "get a grant" to have the shower room altered.
The "body" that arranged everything, use "their registered" contractors.
The firm that carried out the work "brought in" their own NICEIC contractor.
There were three circuits in the shower room; lighting, heater & shower.
I queried some of the decisions made and work carried out, but because, in theory, my Mother was not "the employer", there was little I could do.
They re-used the 6.0m.m. T&E for the new 9.5Kw shower unit. (It was only a 10/12mt length). They left the 604N consumer unit exactly as it was, but to "get over" the "every circuit in a bathroom should have 30mA RCD protection" recommendation, they installed a 80Amp-30mA RCD as the main incomer/isolator between meter and 604N.
I can only assume that the electrician provided his certificate for the shower room, with his test results, to the "builder" who would have passed this on to the "body" that arranged the grant monies?
This surely does not allow for the fact that if there is ANY problem with ANY circuit, it will "take out" the whole house electrics?

Maybe you should have started a new thread with this.

40A and 6mm is probably OK, but the final decision would be based on seeing the "run" of the cable.

As for a single RCD now protecting the whole house - I wouldn't have done that.

 

[telectrix]

cheapskates. should have fitted a new CU.

 

[Ohmyword]

Maybe you should have started a new thread with this.

40A and 6mm is probably OK, but the final decision would be based on seeing the "run" of the cable.

As for a single RCD now protecting the whole house - I wouldn't have done that.

I posted on this thread because I too would have changed the consumer unit and wanted to hear other comments. Is what I have described, common NICEIC practise?

The other circuits in this Wylex 604N (two feeding circuits in the shower room) are still on re-wirable fuses.

Should they have installed a 17th edition, high integrity unit?

I would also have upgraded the 6.0 m.m. (on shower) to 10.0 m.m. (just as a "in case the shower is ever upgraded" reason).

 

[malcolmsanford]

The existing circuits in the bathroom which I believe you said were lights and heating, as long as they never worked on them then as per the 17th BS 7671-2008, they have no need to RCD protect them, though with a elderly customer I would have advised that.

As for the work that was done which was repalcing the old shower with that new 9.5KW. That at 240volts which most showers are rated to gives you 39.6 amps. The only way that 6mm cable will be sufficient is if it is clipped on the surface, is it??

As for the single 80amp up front RCD well IMO that contravenes regulation 314.1 Division of installation and should not have been done.

If I were you after checking the cable run for the shower and if any of the cable goes through a wall or is buried or is in trunking, then a strong letter to the body should be sent, highlighting the issues i've raised, I would be pleased to help you draft this letter, quoting relevant Regs to get this circuit and installation done to the standards and safety your mother deserves.

While your checking the cable also see if there is a Yellow/Green cable attached to the main water pipe and if she as it the main gas pipe, and is it the same size as the main earth cable. We will touch on the chance of it being plastic or not later.

Also as it was a shower circuit, are all the pipes in the bathroom have green/yellow cables, again we will cover the part about them being extraneous conductive parts later.

 

[Spudnik]

Hmmmm yes, division of circuits should have been thought about, however, if a client is not prepared to pay additional costs for the installation of a new CU, i dont see any reason any a 30mA RCD upfront cant be used.

Normally in these situations i install a stand alone CU with 30Ma RCD MS and swap the new circuits and any worked on, to it.

Tin hat on

 

[malcolmsanford]

Hmmmm yes, division of circuits should have been thought about, however, if a client is not prepared to pay additional costs for the installation of a new CU, i dont see any reason any a 30mA RCD upfront cant be used.

Normally in these situations i install a stand alone CU with 30Ma RCD MS and swap the new circuits and any worked on, to it.

Tin hat on

That is exactly what I would have done Jas, either henley blocked the tails, or if the existing board was rated for it, removed the Shower circuit from it, and fed a new shower board from the way in the CU and diverted the shower circuit into the new RCD/RCBO one. But fitting an up front RCD that if there is any fault within the installation,would leave an 82 yr old woman without heating, lighting or any power is just plain crazy IMO

 

[jonesyc894]

is it ok for me to pull main fuse to accomplish this i know supplier should but as the seals are missing anyway would i get away with this

Just take out the main fuse and if questioned IF. Tell them you had to perform an emergency isolation.

 

[wade88]

Quick Q,

Under what circumstances are you obliged to upgrade the tails of a CU? Apart from the obvious such as they are too small.

 

[Des 56]

If they are "buried less than" etc where an Rcd would then have to be employed and discrimination issues with the consumer unit Rcds become a problem