Discuss Does a CU swap require a full initial verification on all circuits before it can be energised? in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Terrible planning does not mean you can energise circuits without proper testing, whether that's in your house or in a prison. The location of the circuits is absolutley irrelevant, it should NEVER be energised before proper testing has taken place. Person planning job should be sacked for lack of competence and having a spark working 20 hours van only lead to tiredness and inevitably mistakes. Prisoners topping themselves won't be an issue if they are killed by something electrical due to lack of testing to confirm its safe I'm the worst case scenario.
 
I still don't get how the job ended up going the way it did. Was it badly planned? Were there too few staff doing the job?

What if it had gone wrong due to lack of time/testing?

Edit: I realise it's easy for me to criticise while I'm sat here drinking Old Peculier!
Early guzzle Daz 🍺🍺
 
Terrible planning does not mean you can energise circuits without proper testing, whether that's in your house or in a prison. The location of the circuits is absolutley irrelevant, it should NEVER be energised before proper testing has taken place. Person planning job should be sacked for lack of competence and having a spark working 20 hours van only lead to tiredness and inevitably mistakes. Prisoners topping themselves won't be an issue if they are killed by something electrical due to lack of testing to confirm its safe I'm the worst case scenario.

That's what I'm saying though. It's just a board change. There aren't really any tests that are anything to do with the wiring up of the board itself. A visual could confirm that live, neutral and earth cables were in the correct terminals or if there was damage to cables. Tork screwdriver for the secureness of the terminations, RCD test. That's about it. Even if the neutral or earth conductors weren't in exactly the right/corresponding terminals it's a busbar at the end of the day. There was a legend so CPD ratings could be verified. Sure it should be tested, I don't disagree, but I mean, what is it that we're actually testing?

Am I wrong. Am I missing something?
 
Look, you are obviously concerned youself. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question!
 
Look, you are obviously concerned youself. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question!

Lol no. Just want people's opinions. I'd have tested it, but failing that I think I would have put on one circuit at a time. Until it was all up. There's nothing definite in the regs. Just wondered what the popular consensus was... while I also have a beer.
 
Was there any thorough testing carried out beforehand though? How would you be aware of any faults that were already existing e.g broken ring conductor or high resistance connection on a circuit that an rcbo wouldn't pick up? Every single termination in the board has been remade and there is requirement by regulation for every circuit to be tested. There is no leg to stand on here, every circuit must be tested before re-energising. I'm afraid there is no short cut or other solution here, I agree with the electricians decision not to re-energise until testing has taken place, as if a situation did arise he would take the blame for it, poor planning or not
 
Was there any thorough testing carried out beforehand though? How would you be aware of any faults that were already existing e.g broken ring conductor or high resistance connection on a circuit that an rcbo wouldn't pick up? Every single termination in the board has been remade and there is requirement by regulation for every circuit to be tested. There is no leg to stand on here, every circuit must be tested before re-energising. I'm afraid there is no short cut or other solution here, I agree with the electricians decision not to re-energise until testing has taken place, as if a situation did arise he would take the blame for it, poor planning or not

Ah, right. The electrician refused to do the testing based on the C3. Said it failed outright.

Periodic inspection and testing every 12 months.

I admit it's a weird one. Just my own pondering whether the installer could have given permission to energize.
 
Surely that is referring to the design process.
132.16 states: "No addition or alteration, temporary or permanent, shall be made to an existing installation, unless it has been ascertained that the rating and the condition of any existing equipment, including the distributor, will be adequate for the altered circumstances
 
Ah, right. The electrician refused to do the testing based on the C3. Said it failed outright.

Periodic inspection and testing every 12 months.

I admit it's a weird one. Just my own pondering whether the installer could have given permission to energize.
But that periodic testing is only as good as the day it's tested, and the eicr does not apply once the board has been changed. Much like the mot on your car. Except changing the board is like taking every single screw and bolt out of your car, putting them back in and not getting it checked. He couldn't give permission to energise whilst still following regulation.
 
Last edited:
But that periodic testing is only as good as the day it's tested, and the eicr does not apply once the board has been changed. Much like the mot on your car. Except changing the board is like taking every single screw and bolt out of your car, putting them back in and not getting it checked. He couldn't give permission to energise whilst still following regulation.

Unless he inspected and tested. Which he could have done. But didn't. (I still find no regulation supporting your view mind.)
 
What was this C3 and was this C3 from a previous EICR.

The C3 was a 70-90mm gap between the existing conduit and the board. Planned to be sorted with boxing in later and grommets. Risk assessment done expected very low risk from the position of the board. Could not physically cause or contribute to an accident short of sticking a fork in it.
 
Unless he inspected and tested. Which he could have done. But didn't. (I still find no regulation supporting your view mind.)
You find no regulation that says you can't energise a circuit without testing being completed? I wont attempt to justify what I said, as I know i am correct. Scary to think anyone would consider energising anything without confirming its Sage
 

Reply to Does a CU swap require a full initial verification on all circuits before it can be energised? in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock