IR Testing... Am I missing a trick here?

[uksparks]

Hi,

I know this may seem like a stupid question, but here goes.

Example...

You have an existing RFC and spur off to a SFCU to feed a flood light for example.

Connect it up, do R1+R2, Zs etc,

but IR, I disconnect N and then run 250v as a start between L-N, then L-E, then N-E, then if all clear (acceptable reading say >100M), I do it at 500v and take the risk.

But first I go round the entire flaming house unplugging everything as there's no telling whats on what circuit, if its SP or DP sockets and just switching off may not be safe, or have missed something.

I know I can do it LN-E @ 500v, but am I missing a trick here?

My issue is, I get a lot of customers wondering why I am essentially interfering with the the rest of the house (unplugging stuff) just because I have fitted an outside light... People don't want me traipsing round their house when all they want is a new light.

I explain it to them, but what do you do? I feel I am doing too much.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Nope applies in all cases.

Care to explain in your usual obnoxious fashion?

 

[Hellmooth]

Looking forward to hearing this one.........what do you fill out if you're altering a circuit?

 

[Midwest]

Nope applies in all cases.

Okay, is this a play on words? Perhaps you can enlighten us all. Just reading page 418 BYB; MWC is intended to be used for additions & alterations to an installation, that do not extend to the provision of a new circuit. Examples include the addition of socket outlets or lighting points to an existing circuit'. Your just playing with us, aren't you.

 

[davesparks]

3. It is prohibited to use either an EIC or MWEIC for the inspection and testing of an existing installation.

Well you could have phrased that a bit better.
Of course an EIC or MWC can't be used for reporting on an existing install, in the same way an EICR cannot be used to certify new work.
But that is irrelevant to the thread, uksparks is asking about the testing of alterations to an existing circuit, not reporting on an installation.
The whole point of an MWC is to certify alterations to existing installations!

 

[Deleted member 9648]

He's posted this sort of tosh before....most noticeably on RCD protection in bathrooms....don't take it too seriously.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If it's tosh, then there's no need for further discussion, carry on as you will.

 

[Leesparkykent]

:iamwithstupid:.....:38:

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Strange how the people who disagree with me, are unable to offer an argument which shows I am wrong.
The one I like most, is 'It might say such and such in the Regs, but it doesn't actually mean that'.
I also find it odd, that I'm being accused of obnoxiousness, yet I have never been banned, unlike my accuser.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Strange how the people who disagree with me, are unable to offer an argument which shows I am wrong.
The one I like most, is 'It might say such and such in the Regs, but it doesn't actually mean that'.
I also find it odd, that I'm being accused of obnoxiousness, yet I have never been banned, unlike my accuser.

I think Davesparks put it pretty well in #19

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Again, the requirement is to inspect and test the new work, not the existing installation.

 

[Andy78]

Again, the requirement is to inspect and test the new work, not the existing installation.

Even though the regs require you to record any defects found in the existing installation, so far as is reasonably practicable, when carrying out alterations or additions ?

To me that requirement would include testing the entirety of any circuit that is being altered.

 

[Darkwood]

Come on guys lets keep things on track and constructive here as oppose to the way this thread could be heading reading some of the replies, if you disagree with a post any member has made and want to challenge it then bring something to the table to make your case rather than just making short smart comment... nothing wrong with a good debate but lets not send the thread downhill while having it... Thankyou.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I get it, we ignore the requirement to ensure the existing installation, supplier's equipment, earthing arrangements, etc. are adequate for the alteration or increase in load before making any alteration or addition.
We just test afterwards.
If someone believes the requirement to note defects (where reasonably practicable) in the existing installation, extends to inspecting and testing, why restrict it to the circuit being altered?
Conduct a full EICR, charge the client £250, then add the spur.

 

[andyb]

So what about a cu change?
I test every circuit that I connect to a new board and put the results on an eic.

 

[TJ Anderson]

So what about a cu change?
I test every circuit that I connect to a new board and put the results on an eic.

That's different as you are (most likely) changing circuit characteristics (e.g. going from 3036 to 60898 for OCPD).