Is main switchboard high risk

[Dan L]

I was recently asked by electrician about Inspection requirements of a house built to be relocated (and installed permanently in unknown location).

The entire house electrical installation will be completed including testing apart from the service main, main earth, earth electrode. There wil be conduits in place for these for future perm install. He was originally wanting to get inspection done for his part of the work ( main switchboard).

As per definition of "mains work" and "mains"

if the service main, main earth, earth electrode or connection into line side of main switch is not being carried out.. And you just leave the MEN link on site but not connected. Does that work require Inspection?

My thinking is that mains are fittings that supply the MEN switchboard and a main switch is part of the MEN SWITCHBOARD.

What I'm not too sure about is a neutral bar "fitttings supplying a" or part of the MEN switchboard..And also it probly would be hard to argue the main earth bar is not work on main earthing system but is it an earth bar if not connected to main earth or earth electrode?

Second point is would the electrician even be obligated to get inspected at that stage if its not going to be livened then? As it will still need mains installed and then inspected after that prior to livening by whoever purchases the house.

It only needs inspected before livening.

Just only other issue I could see is the COC needs to be within 6 months of livening or COV is required by an electrician or Inspector but I feel house buyer would be responsible for that.

Thoughts?

[JamieP]

My opinion is not high risk.

There is no mains work happening.

He wouldn't be able to supply a CoC until the house was placed in the location it is going but location is part of the CoC. He should do it once he knows the thought but the obligation all lies on the person who connects to ensure that happens.

That person will need to either sight or issue a CoC, sight an RoI and then issue the ESC for the installation.

[AlecK]

There is no longer such a thing as a 'service main"

What you will generally have in a case like this is some of the "mains' being installed now, and the rest later, by someone else.
While "self-certification" is a myth; it's a useful one.
Each of the practitioners should certify the PEW they do.
And as each will generally have some high risk PEW, they should ensure inspection.
So 2 CoCs, and 2 RoIs, would be normal.


If no part of the "mains' is being installed as part of initial construction, and the MEC & electrode are to be added on site later; then the only HRPEW now is the MEN link.
I wouldn't bother getting inspection for that.

[Dan L]

Thanks for your input.

Just to follow up.

Jamie what makes you say that a coc can not be issued before it's relocated.?

I now have a memory of previous conversation about existing relocated houses.

I think you an Akek have a different view to energy safety from memory with energy safety allowing an existing house to be relocated and that installation to remain to stay in service with only a cov required to cover existing and coc and ROI to cover new work on connect.

I'm thinking along these lines exept in this situation work is less than 6 months old with coc.

I feel like that may not be technically correct from memory . But that way is acceptable to energy-safety.

So just to clarify main switch, neutral and earth bar are only part of switchboard. Not mains?

[Dan L]

I just re read our previous discussion "old house relocated"

I do fully agree with Alek there. Makes sense to me and now Jamie I understand what you are saying about coc and address to make work compliant.

However I have livened some relocated houses before using the energy safety recommend option. With cov from electrician for existing, coc for new work to connect and myself completeing ROI and livening.

I try my best to come up with solution for electrician and at the time my understanding was this energysafety document is going to cover me. Why would I not think that. this information was recently given to us second last Ewrb refresher. It's unfair if we will get penalised following the advice of EWRB and energy safety (weather its technically correct or not). And for reasons like this makes me loose faith in the system.

Going back to original scenario.

These houses will be built, the sold at a random time to a random customer to be installed at a random location. The electrician building house will not see the house after they Finish their part.

Seems like this type of scenerio it outside of ESR.

So any options that can facilitate this?

My only suggestion is to give house and switchboard a identification number and ref this on coc with explanation note. This will then be left in switchboard and copy kept with electrician. Photos taken to go along clearly showing house identity and work etc.

I don't see any problems coming from this (apart from added technicality on coc)

?

[AlecK]

Yes I believe ES are wrong WRT re-located installations.
But I acknowledge they are the Regulator so their opinion carries some weight.

However this is not a case of an existing installation being relocated,
it's a case of a part-installation being installed away from the site it will end up on.

It's clearly PEW as per Schedule 1, and as such must be certified, as per ESR 65.
And if any of the PEW is classified as high risk; that needs to be inspected.

None of the relevant ESRs make any particular person responsible for issiong coCs or RoUs.
That's why I call "self-certification" a myth.
The system places all responsibility for ensuring that certification & inspection happen on the 'person about to connect, via ESR 73A.
However while that person may issue the necessary documents (though not both of them);
they are highly unlikely to be willing to certify PEW done earlier by others.

Far better for whoever does the PEW to either issue the CoC, or have someone issue it.
And, if necessary, arrange for inspection.

ESR 67(2)(a) makes location a required item of the CoC;
And the high risk database uses location as the main search key.
All the requirements about supplying copies of documents revolve around being able to identify documents by the location of the installation they relate to.

Which could create a problem in cases like this; where PEW is done elsewhere than at eventual location, and that location may not be knowable at the time the work is done.
Which is where ESR 74I(c) comes in; and allows use of a unique identifier.
(So not really outside ESRs, as ESRs include a way to deal with the issue.)
Anything that allows the CoC to be related to one particular structure will do; doesn't have to be a permanent - or even long-term - feature of the structure.
The builder will have a means of identifying each one they build.


Copy must go to whoever requested the work - which will likely be a construction company rather than the eventual owner/ occupier.
Leaving an extra copy at swbd is not a requirement;
but certainly makes sense in terms of ensuring that the eventual 'person connecting" has all the documentation they need.


At some stage there will be "mains work" (even for an off-grid installation);

[Dan L]

74I(c)

Bingo!!

Thanks much appreciated. I was not aware of that regulation. Very good to know.

Photos attached for future learning and convenience.