No Part P Certificate

[No1]

Okay, so the "electrician" that fitted that is a complete numpty. There's plenty wrong with what he did.

BUT there is NOTHING wrong with that consumer unit.

I would have disconnected the whole lot, then re connected it properly, correcting all the mistakes and faults with the wiring as you go, and labelled it all properrly.  there was NO NEED to rip that new board off the wall and bin it.

And then, since you HAD re connected the whole CU, I woudl have no difficulty in certifying it just as you did with the new one. You would have connected and tested everything, the only thing you hadn't done was physically screw the CU to the wall.

That's all I am getting at, is why bin a perfectly good CU and charge the customer more money that is not needed? 

I shall say it one last time and hopefully it will then sink in. I will try and say it in the easiest to understand way possible.

The customer wanted me to fit a metal consumer unit.

It had nothing to do with any form of fire resistance and I really don't know why anyone thought it did. I have not once mentioned on this thread that it was fitted due to its fire resistance. They chose the metal CU due to the fact it is located in a passage way through the garage and believed it would stand up to getting knocked better than a plastic one. 

Maybe you can all stand down off of your high horses now and concentrate on your own lives.

 

[steptoe]

Makes you wonder why they didn't want a metal CU fitted in the first place, :C

 

[Sharpend]

Makes you wonder why they didn't want a metal CU fitted in the first place, :C

Maybe it was because they had received their winter energy allowance and thought they needed to spend it on something to do with energy? 

Or maybe.....

the first electrician sold them on a plastic one as the metal ones weren't a requirement until 1 Jan ? 

Or maybe..... 

They were sold a replacement metal one to be compliant and be able to sign it of with a scam? 

 

[Sharpend]

But most of all what I don't understand what was the purpose of the OP in the first place, as it bears no relevence to the works done? :C  

 

[Badger]

Okay, so the "electrician" that fitted that is a complete numpty. There's plenty wrong with what he did.

BUT there is NOTHING wrong with that consumer unit.

I would have disconnected the whole lot, then re connected it properly, correcting all the mistakes and faults with the wiring as you go, and labelled it all properrly.  there was NO NEED to rip that new board off the wall and bin it.

And then, since you HAD re connected the whole CU, I woudl have no difficulty in certifying it just as you did with the new one. You would have connected and tested everything, the only thing you hadn't done was physically screw the CU to the wall.

That's all I am getting at, is why bin a perfectly good CU and charge the customer more money that is not needed? 

i think someone ducked up on the labelling pmsl :slap

 

[Blue Duck]

water sockets!

 

[Andy™]

water sockets!

water sockets?! whats wrong with calling them taps?!

 

[Blue Duck]

that's what I've been doing wrong all these years....

not wiring all the taps in the house to the db! headbang

along with zeroing my fluke MFT before doing a loop test!

:facepalm:

 

[Manator]

I have just spent an hour reading through this thread. Some of the replies have been, lets say short? However I believe any person reading this thread will be banging their head!

Regardless of what Electrical Safety First, NICEIC, ECA, or any other organisation think,the general public do not know anything.

They only take advice from those whom they expect to be professionals. I think we are all aware of your first post, and the question asked. Later more information came to light that was lacking in the original post,but provided additional information.

The pictures you provided showed so many faults that I personally would have included in my original question, if nothing more than to justify a new CU being fitted.

Before I get to the faults I need to state that no plastic consumer unit is, or ever will be a C1, as such no plastic units require ripping out and replacing for metal ones.

The board fitted is classed as a high integrity board, this provides ways to be used that do not require RCD protection. However to meet the requirements of the wiring regulations the installation methods have to be fitted that allow no RCD protection. If they do not then a risk assessment has to be attached to the installation certificate.

I also see examples of crimped connections being used to extend cables, a perfectly acceptable method, however the crimp connections do not have the indents that I would expect from a proper crimp tool. Whilst looking right those connections can not be trusted.

All the circuits are connected to only one side of the dual RCD board! So one fault and everything goes down. Apart from those unsafe non conforming circuits installed without any RCD protection.

Be very careful when giving advise, you have to be sure and correct, otherwise they have a very good cause for a claim against you for false representation of facts.

Any additional costs incurred because of your advise can be claimed back.

I have just tested some submains installed in the 1960's in Pyro, a recent inspection said that it had to be replaced and the client was not happy.

He called me in to test and give an independent evaluation on the proviso that we did not get any remedial works.

I found nothing wrong, in fact it provided better results that a recent 7 year old installation.

I am just amazed at the amount of domestic installers that would rip out better than installed system because they know no different.

I am with the majority here, they provided good advise within the first 5 post in reply, you decided to cash in and go ahead with an installation that still requires improvement!!

 

[ProDave]

All wise words from Manator, but I still maintain, there was nothing wrong with that new BG board, and it could have been disconnected, re configured and re connected properly, along with correcting the other wiring issues and it would have been perfectly satisfactory.

 

[Doc Hudson]

Looking at the MCBs and the relative positions of the stickers it looks to me as though a crossed neutral was found on two lighting circuits, So both circuits made into Non RCD protected rather than across two RCD's

Doc H. 

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

Looking at the MCBs and the relative positions of the stickers it looks to me as though a crossed neutral was found on two lighting circuits, So both circuits made into Non RCD protected rather than across two RCD's

Doc H. 

I was thinking similar, except the rcds have been shifted up so crossed n on those circuits  and n-e faults on the 1st  2  breakers.  The guy then was getting peed off with it all and threw anything in and quicky  got the lid on.

Now we have seen that and know so much more than the first couple of posts i think i would of had the unit of the wall and  moved it slightly and or fitted trunking to cover the mess of cables. Due to that and wrong breaker sizes fitted i would have said why not also fit a metal c/u .

 

[Mark2spark]

Just my tuppence worth, earlier on in the thread it was said that the elderly couple didn't want any paperwork issues (associated with non notification of the plastic CU) to arise if/when they come to sell their house.

Seems to me that they could have made an application to their LABC, paid the fee, and the LABC would have come out and (eventually, after new labels etc) issued a Building Regs Certificate?

The remedials aren't a notification issue, just the new CU.

Meaning that the elderly couples decision to go with the new metal board was based on your advice to them about non compliant paperwork (or lack of).