Dangerous conditions found during CU change.

[Whitbreadz]

First post so bare with me, and apologies if this isn't in the right place!

Im a quite "wet behind the ears" electrician, qualified about a year ago and recently changed firms. New firm is getting me to do board changes, often without a prior EICR which my previous firm always did first.

My understanding is when finding conditions during the testing following CU change that would warrant a C2, the client should be made aware and to either have the conditions rectified or the affected circuit left disconnected. Now the boss is saying if they don't want it done just put these in the comments on existing installation section of the certificate because we can't leave things turned off, and "you can't put a gun to someone's head and have the work done" but again I'm of the understanding this doesn't absolve you from any comeback if something untoward was to happen.

Just wondering what people do in these situations as I'm not getting much help from anyone at my firm.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Octopus]

A CCU change requires a EIC not an EICR. As others have already shown, before the CCU is changed the installation condition must be inspected and tested.

Complete with sensible and thorough use of the comments box ......

If the decorator hadn’t removed the down lights you wouldn’t have seen the issue either

 

[Deleted account]

Thanks for the replies all!

It's pretty much change the board and hope! Obviously a full EIC is completed along with associated tests.

An example of a recent one that is somewhat trivial and up to personal opinion, would be the decorator moving all the downstairs lights and you can see connectors pushed up in to the ceiling, too short to bring down to test or rectify, with no enclosure. In my opinion that contravenes 526.1 (I believe?) Basic insulation outside of an enclosure. I'd classify that as C2. Now according to the customer that was done about 15 years ago, there's no sign of heating of what I could see of the connectors, so in theory should be ok for a while to come? The customer was informed and wasn't interested in having it done as it had been fine for ages apparently.

Now I put a note on the EIC in comments on existing section, but I was reading the best practice guide number 1 on CU changes last night and it states that a "disclaimer does not absolve the installer from responsibility" you're meant to carry out a risk assessment, but if it's still classified as a C2 you still have to leave it disconnected. Now my boss isn't the sort to do a risk assessment, as he thinks it's trivial and has "been in the game too long to worry About things like that" So back to my original point, where does responsibility stand in situations like the above?

Also Paignton Pete, I like the idea of doing the tests before doing the board change! What sort of depth and sampling are you doing on the pre change tests?

One test per circuit at what I suspect is the furthest point for loop imedance. And basic I.r test earth to live conductors only.
If they are ok I continue with full board change and full testing.
However issues still may occur in the full testing, so customer is always made aware of this.

 

[Nigel]

I think your new boss is 100% correct.

You are not responsible for the parts of the installation you have not touched. Remember you are improving things. Carrying out an EICR before will do what exactly ?

Complete the works and although I would not leave a C1 unaddressed I would note it all on the EIC. That is what they ‘comments on existing installation’ box is for.

 

[telectrix]

disagree there essex. if you leave a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation and someone gets hurt/killed as a result, it's not much use before the judge, saying " it was dangerous, but i wrote it on the certificate".

 

[Nigel]

disagree there essex. if you leave a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation and someone gets hurt/killed as a result, it's not much use before the judge, saying " it was dangerous, but i wrote it on the certificate".

So do you isolate circuits at survey? “Sorry luv this is clearly dangerous so I am going to have to pull the main fuse.”?

Or do you price to bring the whol installation up to current Standards and then push the cost of doing any improvement out of reach?

It will completely stack up in court. It is what it is designed for. A section to detail clearly what the state of the other parts of the installation is.

 

[Ian1981]

If changing the Cu and you complete a zs test on say a radial circuit that you have connected into the Cu, it turns out that there is no cpc present at the point of test, surely it can’t be suggested that you just connect the circuit anyway and leave a comment on the EIC?
The comments box is for non compliance’s to be noted that do not give rise to potential danger and immediate danger.

 

[Deleted account]

Regs wise I think you are correct teletrix. You shouldn't leave an installation with a potentially dangerous situation after a cu change,

however I think Essex is also correct. I cannot force people to get work done they don't want or cannot afford done.

At the end of the day a new up to date residual current protected board is going to make the whole installation safer under fault conditions that it was before. So in court you can explain that to a judge if nessissary and show your notes on the eir (comments on existing installation).
The potentially dangerous situation is going to be there if you do the work or don't. You haven't made it worst, in fact you've made it safer and made the customer aware.

 

[Nigel]

If changing the Cu and you complete a zs test on say a radial circuit that you have connected into the Cu, it turns out that there is no cpc present at the point of test, surely it can’t be suggested that you just connect the circuit anyway and leave a comment on the EIC?
The comments box is for non compliance’s to be noted that do not give rise to potential danger and immediate danger.

There are two boxes. One for non-conformances and one for comments on the existing installation.

 

[Ian1981]

There are two boxes. One for non-conformances and one for comments on the existing installation.

No, one is for comments on the existing installation and one is for departures which if you as the installer have departed from bs7671 then you must record this on the EIC

 

[Nigel]

No, one is for comments on the existing installation and one is for departures which if you as the installer have departed from bs7671 then you must record this on the EIC

Same thing. You are being silly.

 

[Flanders]

This is why an installation should be checked before blindly going in a changing a board, As it was said early carry out the testing before you do the board change , if there are any issues Like no bonding, low IR , broken ring , damaged accessories contact the boss so he she can explain to the customer the risks and cost .

 

[Ian1981]

Same thing. You are being silly.

No silly is going out now and trick or treating at 36 years old getting dragged along by my 4 year old boy

 

[Deleted account]

No silly is going out now and trick or treating at 36 years old getting dragged along by my 4 year old boy

Get away. It's you doing the trick or treat dragging your boy. Go on admit it.

 

[Ian1981]

Get away. It's you doing the trick or treat dragging your boy. Go on admit it.

Yep I’ll take all the good sweets too

 

[Ian1981]

Going back to the debate
A departure needs to comply with regulations 120.3 , 133.1.3 and 133.5 where as comments on the existing installation in the case of additions or alterations are regulation 644.1.2 ( 18th BBB)
Two completely different things.
Note 644.1.2 says any defect that is revealed during inspection and testing shall be corrected before the certificate is issue during alterations and additions