One house with two meters

BailMeOut

I am about to move into a house that used to be two houses and still has two meters and two bills. We have plans to properly consolidate the two homes in next 12 months but want to know if there is any reason we should get the power consolidated asap? Is this an expensive job and are there significant monthly savings having one bill instead of two? The meters are adjacent to one another and there is a 3rd night rate one for one of the units?

than you!

meercat

BailMeOut wrote: »

I am about to move into a house that used to be two houses and still has two meters and two bills. We have plans to properly consolidate the two homes in next 12 months but want to know if there is any reason we should get the power consolidated asap? Is this an expensive job and are there significant monthly savings having one bill instead of two? The meters are adjacent to one another and there is a 3rd night rate one for one of the units?

than you!

Site visit required by an rec to give an accurate estimate. A certificate will be required and depending on the current installations ,the costs will be reflected

kramer1

One meter would probably work out cheaper by way of standing charges and pso levies, getting the situation remedied could be tricky depending on how far apart the consumer units are. I'd leave it till I was ready to rewire the lot, if that's the plan

BailMeOut

Thank you. My gut feeling is to just pay two bills and consolidate later.

2011

BailMeOut wrote: »

Thank you. My gut feeling is to just pay two bills and consolidate later.

It might not be too much of an ordeal. It depends on many factors. As quotes are generally free you should get someone to have a look.

Are the two meters side by side ?
If they are then it would be straightforward for the two meters to be changed to one.
You're probably paying two standing charge etc etc

Still leaves with two consumer units,don't know how the regs are on that but I would think it would be fine because they are not new.
One might have to be made into a sub board ?

2011

BrownFinger wrote: »

Still leaves with two consumer units,don't know how the regs are on that but I would think it would be fine because they are not new.
One might have to be made into a sub board ?

Yes, a main board and a sub board would probably be best.

2011

Just to add, there is nothing in the rules that suggests that 2 or more distribution boards are not permitted within an installation. In fact a design that has multiple distribution boards is often the most practical and cost effective solution.

Reisers

2 or more boards and you could argue that they should be wired independently from a proper main distribution board.

With the installation being split up before ,there might be instantaneous showers needing a controller.

2011

Reisers wrote: »

2 or more boards and you could argue that they should be wired independently from a proper main distribution board.

Nope.
All you have to do is comply with the rules. There is no regulation stating that both existing boards have to be fed from a “proper” main distribution board. What do you mean by “proper” ?

Once the electrician ensures that ET101 is complied with one board can be made the main board and the other board can be made a sub distribution board.

From what we have been told there is no advantage to be gained from installing an additional board.

With the installation being split up before ,there might be instantaneous showers needing a controller.

True, but that would only be one of many things that would have to be looked at when combining two separate electrical installations into one. How this would impact on earth fault loop impedance (therefore disconnection times) would be another.

Reisers

"Could argue"

Didn't say it had to be done

2011

Reisers wrote: »

"Could argue"

Didn't say it had to be done

Fair enough

Reisers

The advantage is that you can work on either board independently without interrupting the supply to another board.

2011

Reisers wrote: »

The advantage is that you can work on either board independently without interrupting the supply to another board.

As work in boards is so infrequent this is of little advantage. Also it is of no benefit when the main board has to be worked on.

The main disadvantage of going down this road is that the tails from the meter would have to be redirected to the new main board which is generally not that simple or cheap.

The most straightforward electrical solutions are generally the best.

Reisers

We don't know what's happening yet

It could turn out that the supply is upgraded to 80amp and the new tails are connected to a new main DB feeding the existing boards using 63A distribution circuits as i opined

2011

Reisers wrote: »

We don't know what's happening yet

Exactly.
That is why speculating that particular complication exists when there isn’t the slightest hint that this is the case is pointless.

It could turn out that the supply is upgraded to 80amp and the new tails are connected to a new main DB feeding the existing boards using 63A distribution circuits as i opined

I think this thread has run its course. If the OP has anything further to add it may be worth unlocking to continue the discussion.