New CU Bonding upgrade.

[Badged01]

Ludicrous isn't it really?

Thats the beauty of the regulations! Why make things easy .......

 

[Octopus]

Another good reason to get certain regs rewritten by the Plain English Society - and then once that's done, get the ESC to do some publicity so that Joe Public is aware.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

 

[Spoon]

Another good reason to get certain regs rewritten by the Plain English Society - and then once that's done, get the ESC to do some publicity so that Joe Public is aware.

You mean do something sensible????
But making the public aware would cost money... in the meantime customers think you are trying to rip them off when you suggest that their current bonding is not adequate and you have to upgrade it...

 

[Andy78]

Ludicrous isn't it really? Hypothetical and not entirely unrealistic scenario: customer has a clapped out, potentially dangerous consumer unit that could spontaneously combust at any moment and no bonding. You breeze in and quote for snazzy new consumer unit, bristling with RCDs, and bonding. Customer refuses bonding installation despite your best efforts to advise them to the contrary. You walk away, leaving them with a potential fire hazard because 'the regs' don't allow you to make one part of an installation safe without first upgrading another. Just saying like....

If a customer's CU was in a "potentially dangerous" condition and won't pay for proper work to be done, then you staple a danger notice to their face and toddle off to the pub. More fool them.

More realistic scenario is that the customer agrees to the bonding work as your advice as a professional is taken in good faith and trust. This is what happens the majority of the time IME.
All those houses still without main bonding conductors slowly get upgraded as any work carried out requires it. Houses all over the country are left safer than they were before, jobs a good'un.


I see your point though. I went to look at an elderly neighbour's house as she wanted a fluorry tube changing, and asked about a CU upgrade while I was there. No main bonding present. After explaining the purpose, requirements and benefits of bonding she still wouldn't have it.
"I haven't had them cables in and the house has been fine since 1968 when I moved in, so why is my house suddenly dangerous ? Ooh no, if it means carpets up and furniture moved we'll forget it."

 

[JulianC]

Might get Elecsa's take on it, if I remember. Got me assessment this afternoon.

 

[Andy78]

Might get Elecsa's take on it, if I remember. Got me assessment this afternoon.

If I knew I would have handed you my list, lol

 

[Octopus]

If a customer's CU was in a "potentially dangerous" condition and won't pay for proper work to be done, then you staple a danger notice to their face and toddle off to the pub. More fool them.

More realistic scenario is that the customer agrees to the bonding work as your advice as a professional is taken in good faith and trust. This is what happens the majority of the time IME.
All those houses still without main bonding conductors slowly get upgraded as any work carried out requires it. Houses all over the country are left safer than they were before, jobs a good'un.


I see your point though. I went to look at an elderly neighbour's house as she wanted a fluorry tube changing, and asked about a CU upgrade while I was there. No main bonding present. After explaining the purpose, requirements and benefits of bonding she still wouldn't have it.
"I haven't had them cables in and the house has been fine since 1968 when I moved in, so why is my house suddenly dangerous ? Ooh no, if it means carpets up and furniture moved we'll forget it."

A light fitting change is maintenance, so bonding or lack of it, is irrelevant.

 

[Andy78]

Sorry, my post was badly worded. I popped round to change a tube as a freebie and the neighbour asked me about updating her 3036 CU, which is when the issue of bonding arose.

 

[JulianC]

Had a good chat about this with my assessor and came up with many angles. The upshot was, either walk away because the likelihood is that the customer and/or the installation will turn into one whole heap of trouble. Or, if it was absotively posilutely not possible to fit the bonding due to the customer flatly refusing to accept it, but fitting a new CU would improve the safety of the installation big time and you wanted the work, get them to sign a comprehensive waiver stating that you'd explained all about bonding and that they were refusing it. That way, when they get a belt off their bath taps and end up in the big bathroom in the sky, your behind is covered in a court of law.

Really enjoyed this year's assessment!

 

[Andy78]

Had a good chat about this with my assessor and came up with many angles. The upshot was, either walk away because the likelihood is that the customer and/or the installation will turn into one whole heap of trouble. Or, if it was absotively posilutely not possible to fit the bonding due to the customer flatly refusing to accept it, but fitting a new CU would improve the safety of the installation big time and you wanted the work, get them to sign a comprehensive waiver stating that you'd explained all about bonding and that they were refusing it. That way, when they get a belt off their bath taps and end up in the big bathroom in the sky, your behind is covered in a court of law.

Really enjoyed this year's assessment!

I'm gonna say that this is bad advice from Mr Elecsa. Waiver or no waiver, you would still be working against one of the fundamental principles of BS7671. I'm no legal expert but I reckon this would result in your danglies being booted round a courtroom if things went sour.
I for one would walk away from a job like that.

 

[JulianC]

You could also argue that walking away from a potentially dangerous installation is professionally negligent. I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer. I am also no legal expert, but I don't see how you could end up in deep doo-doo for leaving an installation in a better condition than when you found it and having a letter from teacher to say why you didn't fit the bonding. One would hope that the prosecution would have more meat to their case than simply "well BS7671 tells you to so you must do it". Anyone fancy volunteering for a test case? :cowboy:

Anyhoo, I've not come across this situation yet and I'm sure I may well also walk away. Maybe.... :smilielol5:

 

[Andy78]

You could also argue that walking away from a potentially dangerous installation is professionally negligent. I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer. I am also no legal expert, but I don't see how you could end up in deep doo-doo for leaving an installation in a better condition than when you found it and having a letter from teacher to say why you didn't fit the bonding. One would hope that the prosecution would have more meat to their case than simply "well BS7671 tells you to so you must do it". Anyone fancy volunteering for a test case? :cowboy:

Anyhoo, I've not come across this situation yet and I'm sure I may well also walk away. Maybe.... :smilielol5:

Simple. The waiver isn't worth squat because it has been signed and therefore authorised by someone who is not qualified to know what the heck they are on about.
You on the other hand do know better, are qualified, and have obligations to work under BS7671 and are responsible for your customers health and safety. Your insurance wouldn't pay out, so why would a court let you off ?

Baggsy not being the test case !!

 

[JulianC]

Well for one thing, I don't believe it is that simple. Doing nothing is obviously the easier and safer option for the electrician. That doesn't automatically make other outcomes incorrect. I could easily countermand your statements about waivers being worthless, insurers not paying out and courts not letting you off by proposing the exact opposite, but then we'd just both be asserting personal opinion as fact (apart perhaps from the bit about insurers. Parasites.)

You may well be right of course, but I suspect, unless a legal precedent is set, we'll never know for sure. Interesting topic though.

 

[Andy78]

Yeah like I said, I'm no legal expert either, the same as your Elecsa guy isn't.

The only things I know for sure are:

• Not installing bonding and carrying out a CU change is against BS7671
• BS7671 is admissible in a court of law as a standard that should be adhered to, even though it is not a statutory document
• I certainly would be walking from a job which asked me to do such a thing.

It certainly could be a interesting debate, but in my mind there is no debate.

 

[Octopus]

Yeah like I said, I'm no legal expert either, the same as your Elecsa guy isn't.

The only things I know for sure are:

• Not installing bonding and carrying out a CU change is against BS7671
• BS7671 is admissible in a court of law as a standard that should be adhered to, even though it is not a statutory document
• I certainly would be walking from a job which asked me to do such a thing.

It certainly could be a interesting debate, but in my mind there is no debate.

I quite agree, CU changes MUST ALWAYS have bonding installed if there is none in place.