Minor works - Like for like

[Blaspark]

If a like for like change is done but it's not in compliance with the new regs is a risk assessment always required?

Also where does the "like for like" terminology come from?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

My non RCD socket labelled up for “lawn mower use only” is still ok though?

 

[Blaspark]

My non RCD socket labelled up for “lawn mower use only” is still ok though?

It's could be marked c2 on eicr according to 5.12.1 of the napit codebreakers book. I agree.

 

[Blaspark]

Ah sanity returns

Can you explain how to manage it then?
Hse say ra is "so that you can weigh up whether you have taken enough precautions or should do more to prevent harm"
Maybe you guys as experienced professionals have a old ra for circumstance that you could show us?
Or just make a basic hypothetical?
Would that ra include a label?
Your work might later be eicr'd by a napit spark. The napit codebreakers books references labels still. That inspector is likely to talk sh*t about you and your business, costing you money, if you don't do it.

Also if customers can't keep MWC and sparks can't be bothered doing them or doing them correctly do you think any medium/large sized business owners would have confidence in you if they had a clue of what was going on. They need businesses that can help them with their problems not old hands moaning.
My brother was a property developer for a while and my mother was a conveyancing solicitor and you guys don't seem to understand something that I've learned from hundreds of conversations. "Old hand spark" is only a respected term in the pub and in a circle j*rk like what goes on here.

 

[DPG]

My non RCD socket labelled up for “lawn mower use only” is still ok though?

Lawnmower would be an ideal candidate for RCD protection. Not sure why you would specifically not want this.

 

[peterhyper]

Lawnmower would be an ideal candidate for RCD protection. Not sure why you would specifically not want this.

I don't think he was being serious about using a non rcd socket for a lawmower.

 

[DPG]

Possibly not.

 

[Flanders]

Can you explain how to manage it then?
Hse say ra is "so that you can weigh up whether you have taken enough precautions or should do more to prevent harm"
Maybe you guys as experienced professionals have a old ra for circumstance that you could show us?
Or just make a basic hypothetical?
Would that ra include a label?
Your work might later be eicr'd by a napit spark. The napit codebreakers books references labels still. That inspector is likely to talk sh*t about you and your business, costing you money, if you don't do it.

Also if customers can't keep MWC and sparks can't be bothered doing them or doing them correctly do you think any medium/large sized business owners would have confidence in you if they had a clue of what was going on. They need businesses that can help them with their problems not old hands moaning.
My brother was a property developer for a while and my mother was a conveyancing solicitor and you guys don't seem to understand something that I've learned from hundreds of conversations. "Old hand spark" is only a respected term in the pub and in a circle j*rk like what goes on here.

As far as i am aware the risk assessment must be produce by the person who is in charge of the electrical installation ,and must be kept up to date if any changes of use are made to the installation, one way the system would work is that any person who is employed on the premises or is a visitor to premises must be made aware by an induction about the socket outlet that has a risk assessment for its use,. It short a pain in the backside so just fit an RCD its easier.☺

 

[Norah Nabino]

IMO, you would not need to perform R1+R2 testing. a Zs reading would confirm cpc integrity and that reading can be entered on your MWC.

The right methodology is to perform R1+R2 as this will confirm the existence of a continuous cpc.
After this cpc continuity test you can then take zs reading.
You just can't start with zs reading.
What happens when the cpc is not continuous?

IMO, you would not need to perform R1+R2 testing. a Zs reading would confirm cpc integrity and that reading can be entered on your MWC.

 

[telectrix]

The right methodology is to perform R1+R2 as this will confirm the existence of a continuous cpc.
After this cpc continuity test you can then take zs reading.
You just can't start with zs reading.
What happens when the cpc is not continuous?

i was referring to a EICR when the circuits are already energised. Zs confirms continuity of cpc on a radial; for a ring, i'd do end-end readings of all conductors as that is a favorite fault when Dave DIY has had his grubby fingers around it.