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.

 

[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 issued after alterations or additional works and considering a Cu change is an alteration that requires certification, then it would fall into this regulation
See regulation 644 in general

 

[Deleted account]

Must be important to tell us twice!

 

[oracle]

Must be important to tell us twice!

Bang on mate!

 

[Flanders]

Bang on mate!

Sound like that the best way. turn on the electric and see if it goes Bang

 

[Deleted account]

Sound like that the best way. turn on the electric and see if it goes Bang

The bang test. The old fail safe method.

 

[oracle]

The bang test. The old fail safe method.

I know a wetpants shorts out water heater, boiler etc to "isolate" the supply.

 

[Andy78]

You have followed the Regs. The distribution board replacement is what you have done. You aren't responsible for the entire installation.

I was meaning 132.16
No alteration shall be carried out unless it has been ascertained that the rating and condition of any existing equipment will be adequate for the altered circumstances.

I take existing equipment to encompass final circuits and their condition in relation to safety. I wouldn't ignore the other part of that reg (not quoted) regarding earthing and bonding on a DB change so don't see that I can ignore the quoted part.


I also take note of the EAWR....

Regulation 4
(1) All systems shall at all times be of such construction as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger.
(2) As may be necessary to prevent danger, all systems shall be maintained so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, such danger.

 

[Risteard]

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

Your certificate does not cover the existing installation, however. Your certificate should very clearly state that it is in respect of the replacement of the distribution board only. Disconnection times obviously need to be verified as part of this (i.e. Zs testing) - this doesn't mean that you have to tear apart existing circuits.

I've found circuits with the sheath not entering enclosures - therefore basic insulation is exposed. This is clearly a C2 defect, however it does not justify me refusing to re-energise the circuit. I simply need to make them aware of the issues, and what they do then is their own business. Obviously if there were exposed live parts or an immediate fire risk (i.e. a C1 issue) then I would not energise it in the interests of safety without addressing that (at least with a sticking plaster).

 

[Ian1981]

I think the moral of the story is a suitable assessment of the existing installation should be taken before you blindly go ahead and change a Cu.
This doesn’t mean necessarily that an eicr should be carried out, but suitable inspection be preformed, this is my opinion anyway.

 

[Ian1981]

Your certificate does not cover the existing installation, however. Your certificate should very clearly state that it is in respect of the replacement of the distribution board only. Disconnection times obviously need to be verified as part of this (i.e. Zs testing) - this doesn't mean that you have to tear apart existing circuits.

I've found circuits with the sheath not entering enclosures - therefore basic insulation is exposed. This is clearly a C2 defect, however it does not justify me refusing to re-energise the circuit. I simply need to make them aware of the issues, and what they do then is their own business. Obviously if there were exposed live parts or an immediate fire risk (i.e. a C1 issue) then I would not energise it in the interests of safety without addressing that (at least with a sticking plaster).

I stand by what I said.
If I did a pre test on say a water heater circuit and found that the cpc was not present due to say a breakage then I would not be energising that circuit

 

[Ian1981]

i stand by what I said in that for an example I would not energise a circuit which had a discontinuous cpc such as say a water heater circuit found during a pre work assessment

 

[Risteard]

i stand by what I said in that for an example I would not energise a circuit which had a discontinuous cpc such as say a water heater circuit found during a pre work assessment

Well that comes back to what I said about ensuring that ADS will operate, including Zs testing. Clearly if there is no cpc then ADS is out the window.

 

[Ffoeguk]

Electrical Safety First - Best Practice Guide 1
Answers all the questions posed here.
NICEIC - have related to these when doing yearly visits in the past to answer questions I have asked in the past