Departures from bs7671, certification.

[odawire]

Hi, I have always made sure my installs have no departures from bs7671 but I'm doing a ccu change next week and have done some preliminary testing and the heating circuit (boiler and heating controls) has low IR readings, had a look in all obvious places and cant find any problems, had trouble breaking the circuit up as its a bit messy, client has just decorated so he doesn't want any damage to the house, seeing as its all fixed equipment (I'm unsure on the cable routes but id guess its buried less than 50mm at some point) is it acceptable to leave this circuit unprotected and note it on the departures section? all the earthing/bonding is mustard. Any experience on this would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[Heisenberg]

Thanks for the reply, BS7671 does not require circuits to be upgraded to current regulations to be connected to a replacement ccu, only for it to be ascertained that they are not an immediate danger (which I would read as no C1's or C2's), GN3 even says there is no obligation to inspect or test any part of the installation!

Also found this : www.niceic.com/Uploads/File1950.pdf Guidance on cu replacement, which also says the same. interesting reading.

The document you refer to also says this:

Where a consumer unit is being replaced, additional protection by means of RCDs in accordance with Regulation 415.1 should be provided to the extent required by the current edition BS 7671, such as for:

• socket-outlets (Regulation 411.3.3 refers),
• mobile equipment for use outdoors (Regulation 411.3.3 refers),
• cables concealed in walls or partitions, where required by Regulations 522.6.6 to 522.6.8, and
• circuits of locations containing a bath or shower (Regulation 701.411.3.3 refers).

So if you are changing the CU you need to use RCD/RCBOs. You can't just avoid putting that circuit on a RCCD because it keeps tripping. And sod what the customer says, it won't be him appearing in front of the men in funny wigs if it all goes south. Do it the way it's meant to be done or walk away, simples.

 

[odawire]

The document you refer to also says this:

Where a consumer unit is being replaced, additional protection by means of RCDs in accordance with Regulation 415.1 should be provided to the extent required by the current edition BS 7671, such as for:

• socket-outlets (Regulation 411.3.3 refers),
• mobile equipment for use outdoors (Regulation 411.3.3 refers),
• cables concealed in walls or partitions, where required by Regulations 522.6.6 to 522.6.8, and
• circuits of locations containing a bath or shower (Regulation 701.411.3.3 refers).

So if you are changing the CU you need to use RCD/RCBOs. You can't just avoid putting that circuit on a RCCD because it keeps tripping. And sod what the customer says, it won't be him appearing in front of the men in funny wigs if it all goes south. Do it the way it's meant to be done or walk away, simples.

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

 

[R G]

Best to get this sorted before you do any work , if you speak to the customer and explain the problem they would see your point , but if you did the job as it stands now , the client probably wouldn't bother getting it sorted

 

[fog]

can be nightmare, personnally you could try taking some temporary 1.5/2.5 mm flex directly to fused connection unit, from board or your RCD socket, eliminating anything else on circuit see if that works, then eliminate heating circuit parts i.e pump, valves, i often take temporary flex to circuit loads eliminating other loads on circuit, to see where the problem is? but it must be RCD protected on a cu change. as said before if the fault still exists more investigation required, explain that the work must be carried out, otherwise no point in cu change. be wary of untruthful customers who say nothing is wrong, getting a quote and fixed price on board change is a good way of customer getting there faults fixed? when i first started got had on this one had to rewire most of upstairs lighting circuit due to rodent damage, customer just kept saying you quoted x thats all you getting

 

[Heisenberg]

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

Where exactly is the contradiction? You have already been told by Richard Burns that your interpretation of the 'departures' section is incorrect, so I'll say it again. You can't use the 'departures' section to mitigate the fact that you have not installed, or are intending to not install, the CU in accordance with BS7671.

 

[DJ Ovengloves]

Wow, I mean wow. Just because your peers are telling to do a job properly and quite clearly you don't have a clue to do so, there no need to start throwing your toys. Either fix the problem (if you can) or walk away, ensuring you let your customer why. Sorry mods, but I find this kind of attitude disgusting if I'm honest.

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

 

[Octopus]

Agree 110%^^^^^^

 

[Sintra]

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

Mate you have asked a question and been given the correct guidance by different members. Just because you may not like what you hear is not the fault of the forum.

 

[odawire]

Where exactly is the contradiction? You have already been told by Richard Burns that your interpretation of the 'departures' section is incorrect, so I'll say it again. You can't use the 'departures' section to mitigate the fact that you have not installed, or are intending to not install, the CU in accordance with BS7671.

In one part of the document it says rcd protection should be required for buried cables, but in another part (and in the regs) it says C3 can be connected to a new CCU, that is a contradiction.

 

[odawire]

Wow, I mean wow. Just because your peers are telling to do a job properly and quite clearly you don't have a clue to do so, there no need to start throwing your toys. Either fix the problem (if you can) or walk away, ensuring you let your customer why. Sorry mods, but I find this kind of attitude disgusting if I'm honest.

The point im making is tht is not the question I asked, Im perfectly able to diagnose and fix wiring faults, but that was not my question, Im not throwing any toys anywhere, can you please explain what you mean when you say you find my attitude disgusting?

 

[odawire]

Mate you have asked a question and been given the correct guidance by different members. Just because you may not like what you hear is not the fault of the forum.

Its not that I don't like what I hear, I don't know why people are talking about me being in court when all I did was pose a hypothetical question, there's a tendency for people on this forum to assume that your totally stupid and don't have a clue what your talking about and I find that a bit ridiculous, I wonder if some of these people have conversations like this in real life?

 

[DPG]

A few questions:
Is there a fault on the circuit in question?
Do you intend putting this circuit on the non-RCD side because it will trip if you put it on the protected side?
Would you say a faulty circuit counts as a 'Departure from bs7671 regulations'? (quoted from your thread title)

Be interested to see some YES/NO answers for these, rather than waffle.

It seems you are looking for a reg you can use to justify this, when the real issue is the fact that you have a faulty circuit. Daz

 

[Octopus]

The OP is very defensive. I reakon that he's actually done this already and was hoping for help in wording the cert.

tin hat on

 

[odawire]

A few questions:
Is there a fault on the circuit in question?
Do you intend putting this circuit on the non-RCD side because it will trip if you put it on the protected side?
Would you say a faulty circuit counts as a 'Departure from bs7671 regulations'? (quoted from your thread title)

Be interested to see some YES/NO answers for these, rather than waffle.

It seems you are looking for a reg you can use to justify this, when the real issue is the fact that you have a faulty circuit. Daz

Is there a fault on the circuit? Yes

Do I intend to put on non-rcd side? No but I was interested to hear peoples thoughts as it seems unclear.

Would I say a faulty circuit is a departue? Possibly yes, posibly no, don't have enough information yet.

I'm not looking for a reg to justify and I'm not waffling

 

[DPG]

Right, so you don't intend to put it on the non-RCD side. In that case you will be putting it on the RCD side. In which case, the fault will need fixing.

Daz

 

[Plonker 3]

In one part of the document it says rcd protection should be required for buried cables, but in another part (and in the regs) it says C3 can be connected to a new CCU, that is a contradiction.

1.No where in the regs does it say that it can be a C3 on a EICR

2. You will be filling in a EIC not a EICR so that totally contradicts what you are saying.

 

[odawire]

1.No where in the regs does it say that it can be a C3 on a EICR

2. You will be filling in a EIC not a EICR so that totally contradicts what you are saying.

I'm refering to it as a C3 (quicker to write) code as it says a fault not causing an imeadiate danger, and thankyou I'm well aware of what certificate I need to fill out, however an EICR is acceptable for a fuseboard change, but NIC says EIC and that's the only reason I do an EIC, BS7671 asks for a EICR.

 

[richy3333]

Typical guidance contradicting itself, once again, this was a question about departures being noted on certificates, and talking about me being in court for leaving dangerous situation, is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this forum?

Yes it is...

 

[richy3333]

I'm refering to it as a C3 (quicker to write) code as it says a fault not causing an imeadiate danger, and thankyou I'm well aware of what certificate I need to fill out, however an EICR is acceptable for a fuseboard change, but NIC says EIC and that's the only reason I do an EIC, BS7671 asks for a EICR.

It's irrelevant what the NICEIC say. A CU change generates an EIC.

 

[Heisenberg]

BS7671 asks for a EICR.

For a board installation In the 'Merry Old Land of Oz' maybe, but not here.

 

[odawire]

For a board installation In the 'Merry Old Land of Oz' maybe, but not here.

Everyone Ive ever spoken to in the industry outside the NIC has maintained a cu change should be a periodic (EICR now) not an EIC I remember being told this at college and also when I did 2391, personally I think either is ok, I don't have the regs in front of me but if memory serves they say something like "suitable certificates should be filled prepared"

 

[Guitarist]

Sorry odawire, but CU change is EIC. Not sure what publications you're reading...

 

[odawire]

Sorry odawire, but CU change is EIC. Not sure what publications you're reading...

I agree with you, but after having this discussion many times with people over the years I've never heard anyone really give a good reason why, the only argument I can really give is beacause im changing the protective device it should be EIC, I'd love if you could clear this up with something from bs7671

 

[DPG]

Surely the clue is in what the acronyms EIC and EICR actually stand for. The clue is right there is it not? Daz

 

[odawire]

Surely the clue is in what the acronyms EIC and EICR actually stand for. The clue is right there is it not? Daz

The new cu is being installed, but the wiring is not, I guy from the EIT told me you should do both! That seems a bit melodramatic to me, also its notifiable work so that's another argument for the EIC

 

[Richard Burns]

If your are installing a new consumer unit then the certification that is required for that job is an Electrical installation certificate.

The process of changing a consumer unit can be fraught with problems because of the state of the attached circuits (as you have found) therefore the ideal situation is to do an EICR on the installation before changing the consumer unit in order to identify any problems. Since most customers will not pay for this the reality is that at least some basic checks will be carried out to identify major problems (usually without any sort of certificate going to the customer but the electrician should record the values).

Advice can then be given to the customer about further work required before the Consumer unit is changed, this allows the electrician and/or customer to decide not to go ahead if they wish and gives full transparency of the process.

Once the Consumer change is agreed the electrician can undertake the work, and then complete an electrical installation certificate for the change (possibly using some of the values obtained from earlier testing where no changes have been made (although the protective devices will have changed)).
And then notify building control through his scheme.

 

[odawire]

If your are installing a new consumer unit then the certification that is required for that job is an Electrical installation certificate.

The process of changing a consumer unit can be fraught with problems because of the state of the attached circuits (as you have found) therefore the ideal situation is to do an EICR on the installation before changing the consumer unit in order to identify any problems. Since most customers will not pay for this the reality is that at least some basic checks will be carried out to identify major problems (usually without any sort of certificate going to the customer but the electrician should record the values).

Advice can then be given to the customer about further work required before the Consumer unit is changed, this allows the electrician and/or customer to decide not to go ahead if they wish and gives full transparency of the process.

Once the Consumer change is agreed the electrician can undertake the work, and then complete an electrical installation certificate for the change (possibly using some of the values obtained from earlier testing where no changes have been made (although the protective devices will have changed)).
And then notify building control through his scheme.

Agreed

 

[Guitarist]

Agreed

Even though everyone you've ever spoken to outside the NIC has told you that it should be an EICR?
You are confusing me now...

 

[Lee Marshall]

Is it not right to do an EIC for the CU change and an EICR for the testing and inspection afterwards? Also if IR test is 7MΩ, it shouldn't be tripping should it?

 

[jeremy]

Changing a CU alters the characteristics of the installation, therefore some form of installation certificate should be issued. It's not a minor works, so it must be an Electrical Installation Certificate ( the clue's in the middle word). You're not reporting on the condition, you're certifying your installation.