New board or not

[ProDave]

While I agree with post #20, a lot of buyers will be hampered by their mortgage provider if the survey gets a sniff of "electrical problerms"

So fitting a new consumer unit and having a valid test certificate may enable a buyer to proceed who might no be able to do so with the old consumer unit and perceived "issues"

But it is really a paperwork excercise as it's very very likely any buyer will get the place completely rewired as part of refurbishments.

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

I have been watching this thread with interest, not sure if i should say but......

My view is that just from the questions asked the OP  is not compedent & should not be charging for work.  There is a big difference between asking for opinions & advice, and for asking about regulations and basic knowledge needed for this job. 

 

[Nebakineza]

It'll need to be a metal board to meet with the new amendment, so you'll have to adapt the circuit protection as necessary. I'd suggest new CU with RCBOs, as they will be doing away with domestic split load boards in the 18th.

 

[Davethsparky]

there are no regs saying you have to split circuits in an old property

As far as I know there are no regs preventing the installation having the same number of circuits if it was a new build today.

 

[Nebakineza]

Would just like to add, although I'm sure you're plenty aware, that if you touch any circuit then you will need to put it on RCBO anyway if you want to sign-off.

 

[Murdoch]

Would just like to add, although I'm sure you're plenty aware, that if you touch any circuit then you will need to put it on RCBO anyway if you want to sign-off.

Really? All circuits must have rcd protection? 

I disagree

 

[Nebakineza]

Really? All circuits must have rcd protection? 

I disagree

Would you care to state why? This particular amendment is very clearly specified.

 

[Murdoch]

Would you care to state why? This particular amendment is very clearly specified.

Best you brush off your BYB and do some reading

 

[Nebakineza]

Chapter 52 of Ammend 3

The Regulations for the selection and erection of wiring systems (impact) will be redrafted, with the removal of all references to “under the supervision of skilled and instructed persons”.

It will be a requirement that cables that are concealed in a wall or partition (at a depth of less than 50 mm) are protected by a 30 mA RCD for all installations if other methods of protection, including the use of cables with either an earthed metallic covering or mechanical protection, are not employed. This will apply to a cable, irrespective of the depth of that cable, in a partition where the construction of the partition includes metallic parts other than fixings.

The exception for cables that form part of a SELV or PELV circuit will be retained.

I work for a company that contracts for many high street retailers and sub-contracts a lot of domestic council renovations. We have had this on strong authority and has been confirmed by several of our NIC representatives. I can assure you it's correct.

 

[NozSpark]

So do I....

EDIT..... jeez,, only about 4 posts late to the party :shakehead

 

[Murdoch]

Chapter 52 of Ammend 3

The Regulations for the selection and erection of wiring systems (impact) will be redrafted, with the removal of all references to “under the supervision of skilled and instructed persons”.

It will be a requirement that cables that are concealed in a wall or partition (at a depth of less than 50 mm) are protected by a 30 mA RCD for all installations if other methods of protection, including the use of cables with either an earthed metallic covering or mechanical protection, are not employed. This will apply to a cable, irrespective of the depth of that cable, in a partition where the construction of the partition includes metallic parts other than fixings.

The exception for cables that form part of a SELV or PELV circuit will be retained.

I work for a company that contracts for many high street retailers and sub-contracts a lot of domestic council renovations. We have had this on strong authority and has been confirmed by several of our NIC representatives. I can assure you it's correct.

So the NICEIC make the rules then.

So surface cabling for a light needs RCD protection then?

I don't think so

So do I....

So do I. What?

 

[NozSpark]

Chapter 52 of Ammend 3

The Regulations for the selection and erection of wiring systems (impact) will be redrafted, with the removal of all references to “under the supervision of skilled and instructed persons”.

It will be a requirement that cables that are concealed in a wall or partition (at a depth of less than 50 mm) are protected by a 30 mA RCD for all installations if other methods of protection, including the use of cables with either an earthed metallic covering or mechanical protection, are not employed. This will apply to a cable, irrespective of the depth of that cable, in a partition where the construction of the partition includes metallic parts other than fixings.

The exception for cables that form part of a SELV or PELV circuit will be retained.

I work for a company that contracts for many high street retailers and sub-contracts a lot of domestic council renovations. We have had this on strong authority and has been confirmed by several of our NIC representatives. I can assure you it's correct.

You need to re-read your own post....it talks a lot about buried cables <50mm.... but what about cables in conduit, trunking, clipped direct, SWA, MICC, cables in buried metal conduit,,,,,, but to name a few?

I've scoobed Murdoch BTW as he is quite correct in what he's said

 

[Nebakineza]

You need to re-read your own post....it talks a lot about buried cables <50mm.... but what about cables in conduit, trunking, clipped direct, SWA, MICC, cables in buried metal conduit,,,,,, but to name a few?

Do you think there will be much of that in the OP's post?

 

[NozSpark]

So do I. What?

It was a late post agreeing with one of yours about 4 previous

 

[Nebakineza]

So the NICEIC make the rules then.

So surface cabling for a light needs RCD protection then?

I don't think so

So do I. What?

Surface no, if there is surface-clipped lighting circuits the old lady's home that's on it's on circuit then fair enough but I highly doubt it. Along with anything else that would apply considering it looks as if it's three circuits in total; there will be enough concealed wire in that installation to mean that reg will apply.

Where did I say the NIC make the 'rules'?

 

[NozSpark]

Do you think there will be much of that in the OP's post?

But you can't go around saying carte blanche statements when they aren't true... IMHO

 

[Nebakineza]

But you can't go around saying carte blanche statements when they aren't true... IMHO

Excuse me pal but you're taking this post completely out of the context of the OP's original question. This is a Q&A thread and my advice was to the electrician who asked. What I said was completely accurate and I stand by it.

Are you also arguing with the fact that board needs changing to a non-combustible material to also comply?

 

[Murdoch]

Excuse me pal but you're taking this post completely out of the context of the OP's original question. This is a Q&A thread and my advice was to the electrician who asked. What I said was completely accurate and I stand by it.

Are you also arguing with the fact that board needs changing to a non-combustible material to also comply?

Er no ..... You said ALL circuits had to have RCD protection.

And they don't

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

 What I said was completely accurate and I stand by it.

 But you dont know, you are assuming.

 

[Nebakineza]

Er no ..... You said ALL circuits had to have RCD protection.

And they don't

All of the circuits are going to need RCD protection I'd put money on it.

 But you dont know, you are assuming.

Granted, but I've worked in the types of properties with boards/ccts he's describing and I'm willing to bet it will meet Ammend 3. It's an easier and better future-proofing solution in my opinion and wouldn't cost an arm and leg.