This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Is a 'meter tails' alteration a 'minor works' change to an existing circuit, or not/never ...

Good day to all

… in these scenarios:

From new service head position to existing consumer unit no change in length/csa ?

From new service head position to existing ‘henley’ block (serving multiple CUs); no change in length/csa ?

As previous with change in length (still ≤ 3m) and conditions  (but no real affects to CCC or Ze PFC) ?

As previous but adding  Switch Fuse Isolator unit (just for kicks) and still ≤3m ?

 

Or meter tails alterations are always an EIC regardless (as I would consider) ?

 

I did come across a post or two suggesting MEIWC as existing circuit alteration, but the impact could be greater.

 

By the way [not], what that is relevant would one fill out on a model EIC Sched. of Test Results  (or MEIWC if one was so inclined) for a ‘meter tails’ alteration ?   

Regards,Habs

 

Parents
  • T'was a question posted as a talking point on  'meter tail distribution circuit’ alterations and application/use of certification for such, in terms of [is it] ‘minor works’ and so on.  Not that interesting perhaps compared to other challenging issues, but useful to me none the less.

    Thank you for the comments.

Reply
  • T'was a question posted as a talking point on  'meter tail distribution circuit’ alterations and application/use of certification for such, in terms of [is it] ‘minor works’ and so on.  Not that interesting perhaps compared to other challenging issues, but useful to me none the less.

    Thank you for the comments.

Children
No Data