Old House relocated

Post Reply
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Old House relocated

Post by Dan L »

Old House relocated to new location.

House most likely 70s.

Pleanty of things that do not comply with current standards. Neutral bar on front switchboard and green MEC to name a couple.

It's my understanding similar to relocating a switchboard to a new room. If an entire house was relocates It woukd all have to be signed off as a new installation as in it would all have to be brought up to current standards?

Second concern. Existing switchboard is potentially asbestos ( black board says Dilex or something similar on The back not familiar with the name). Is there anything in safety regs forbidding this or woukd I be better looking in builders code for info on this.

Or any other relevant information to this situation?

Regardless I think it would be silly not to get rid of old board completely and update to a modern switchboard but this is not my job.

Help much appreciated, thanks
TPower
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:53 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Old House relocated

Post by TPower »

I believe it to be considered the same installation, it just happens to have been shifted. Which would mean if it complied in its time, it still complies now. You wouldn’t need a complete re wire just because you’ve relocated the building. Interested to hear other thoughts on this though.
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Old House relocated

Post by AlecK »

This issue has been argued backwards & forwards many times.
But as far as I know there is no case law; so I'll cover the main points each way and readers can make up their own minds.


At one stage ES published an opinion that it was deemed to be the same installation; but unfortunately such opinions don't cover your bum
(there was a disclaimer on old ES website noting that the only rules you can rely on are the Act, ESRs & Standards; and similar will now be on Worksafe's website). And notable that another such opinion, WRT switching of sockets for issue of WiEF, was eventually reversed because the original opinion was simply wrong. Not that they ever admitted having published incorrect information; they just came out with a new advisory and quietly took down the original.

The arguments for treating it as same installation are all based on ESR 113 - often referred to as "the grandfather clause" - which applies to " works, installations, fittings, and appliances" that were "installed, for sale, or in use" on 1 April 2010. "In use" being the applicable thing in this case.

Clause (2) says may continue to be used provided three conditions are met:
- not electrically unsafe;
- complied with 1997 Regulations (and since those Regs had a closely similar provision, in effect all the way back to whatever Regs the installation was installed under);
- continue to comply with the original Regs.

So this is about whether relocation of can be considered to be "continuing to be used".
But there are several reasons for this not being applicable.


Under ESRs; the primary identifier for any installation is the location.
In fact it's the ONLY identifier; nothing else in a coC, RoI, or ESC identifies which installation the document relates to.
So it follows that a different location must be treated as a different installation.
At the simplest level, a builder's 'temporary" supply is always treated as a new installation for each new site; and the difference between that and a relocated house is only a matter of scale. There's no difference in principle.

When eg a house is moved to a new site; it isn't a complete installation that's moved. Rather it's a collection of fittings; with several necessary parts of the installation not being moved with the rest; always including mains & main earthing system.
On a new site, these can never be reinstated as they were ; so ESR 59(3)(b) option of maintaining an installation in "original condition" cannot apply.
The only valid option for such parts of the installation is 59(3)(a), compliance with "3000".
So we're not talking about relocating a complete installation; but only a collection of fittings that used to be part of an installation.

In effect what's happened is the fittings at the old site have been "permanently disconnected" from supply; and - as per Schedule 1 clause (2)(i) - once they've been disconnected then work on them is no longer PEW. This allows non-electricians to saw large structures into parts for easier location.
At the new site, they'll be connected to a different supply - but only after being checked for safety.

Consider what happens when we replace a single fitting, eg a socket. The old one is disconnected, and the new one is connected.
ESR 113 would allow the original socket to continue in service, but that's not what's happening. It's not the same socket continuing in service; it's an existing fitting being removed from service and a different fitting being connected in its place.

Maybe the replacement was for purely cosmetic reasons; and the old socket is in sound condition. So it gets re-used for a new socket somewhere else. That's not continuing in service, it's a new socket point added - so it must be given RCD protection.

Correct that relocating a switchboard - or any other fitting / collection of fittings - within same structure requires full compliance with current rules. It's an alteration, not "maintenance" or "repair".
Why would relocating a somewhat larger collection of fittings to a new site be any different?

Again the difference between a single fitting and an whole bunch of fittings within a relocated structure is only scale; no different in principle.
The house-full of fittings has been disconnected at one site and is no longer part of any installation.
Subsequently this collection of used fittings is reconnected as part of a different installation at a different site.

This happens routinely for schools, where "pre-fab"classrooms are moved around from one school to another.
These are "part installations" comprised of a collection of fittings, disconnected from a submains of one school and then connected to new submains at the new school. No-one would suggest that they are still the same installation; they stip being part of the first school's installation and then get added to the new school's installation.
Same for site huts moved from one construction site to another. Many of these are "connectable installations"' that just plug in; but any that are directly connected become part of the new site's installation.
A CoC must be issued for the new supply plus an ESC that covers the entire structure.


Whoever connects them to supply at the new site must issue an ESC that covers ALL of what is connected .
CoC & RoI are needed for the new mains & main earthing.
Some argue that a CoC can't be issued; as the PEW of installing the various subcircuits etc was done long ago by someone else.
But a CoC doesn't say "I did it"; it simply says "I declare that it was done lawfully; and that it complies".

Everything must be suitable for connection to the new supply.
In particular protective devices must be suitable for the PSSC of the supply (unlikely for SERFs).

The network supplying the new site will certainly regard it as a new installation, and issue a different ICP (not that the ICP has any bearing on what is or isn;t an "installation").
On the building side, there wouldn't be a Council in the country who didn't regard a relocated building as a "new" building; which has to meet Building Code fully.


Overall I don't think the "same installation" side of the argument stacks up very well at all.

And the primary reason for adopting it generally seems to be to save money.
Since when has that been an acceptable reason for non-compliance?

------------------
WRT the swbd probably containing asbestos; there's nothing in Wiring Rules about this.
But there are Regulations issued under HSW Act that require you to notify the owner .
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Old House relocated

Post by Dan L »

If a coc is produced stating its done lawfully and it complies then I assume the person livening to network can rely in good faith on the coc and connect.?

Of course along with coc and roi for new mains

But I feel the person would be lieing in that coc making it a false declaration unless they do bring it up to current standards as the coc is dated for now.
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Old House relocated

Post by AlecK »

Yes, would have to be careful how such a CoC to cover the relocated part(s) of the installation was filled out.
and it's not clear that one is definitely needed; was simply pointing out that one could be issued.

We have a similar issue when eg a cable is installed for future. The work has to be certified; and if the work is finished off later by someone else the 2nd person can rely on the earlier CoC - but only up to 6 months. And the 1st CoC may well actually certify "not safe to connect" in any case.
Once 6 months have passed that 1st CoC can't be relied on by whoever hangs the load on the end and connects to supply.

However no "person connecting" can rely on any CoC.
Sure, they have to "sight" relevant CoCs & RoIs, but nothing says they can rely on them in making their judgement to connect (or not).

Same for Inspectors; we can't rely on CoCs, except to identify what high risk PEW was done and to establish the location it was done at.
Dan L
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 10:00 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Old House relocated

Post by Dan L »

I thought that's exactly what 73 a 4 says about person connecting can rely in on coc and roi if they had not done the work?

73 a 4
"person who undertakes the connection of an installation or part installation is
entitled (if acting in good faith) to rely on the veracity of any certificates of
compliance relating to prescribed electrical work done on the installation or"
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Old House relocated

Post by AlecK »

You are correct ; but only WRT the CoC, there's nothing about relying on the RoI.
and they also have to sight signed test results

(Sorry; I should have checked; never rely on memory)
Post Reply