Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 459 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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

Splitting tails on crappy old installations.

justinneedham
Who uses the "Split the tails and ignore the faults" approach in domestic works? ( -Fondly used by many PV installers). 


-Where do you believe your responsibility ends, and how does the argument go if you might nonetheless be re-connecting tails to a potentially dangerous existing installation?
Parents
  • 0

    Where do you believe your responsibility ends



    For me my responsibility is only for my work. Yes, I'll keep an eye out for problems with an existing installation, always advise about the dangers present and the advantages of upgrades/repairs, note such things on a cert of course (in the box provided), but ultimately it's the customer's/owner's responsibility. It's not up to me to dictate to the customer how they spend their money (or for me to do anything for free). So, for me splitting the tails (perhaps with an extra new main switch upstream...) and a new CU for the new work, while not ideal in many ways, is a legitimate option.


    Yesterday I was called to a new customer. TT supply, no up-front RCD, no RCD’s at all. Ra 160 Ohms. Wylex fuseholders,



    Things like that can be very interesting to analyse in detail. Long enough ago the regs permitted such arrangements - and as long as the circumstances are right, it's not necessarily as dangerous as it might first seem. If the earth fault currents are relatively low and metalwork within reach is effectively bonded together (or isolated from true earth) then the touch voltages within the building could be quite acceptable even without any disconnection at all.


       - Andy.
Reply
  • 0

    Where do you believe your responsibility ends



    For me my responsibility is only for my work. Yes, I'll keep an eye out for problems with an existing installation, always advise about the dangers present and the advantages of upgrades/repairs, note such things on a cert of course (in the box provided), but ultimately it's the customer's/owner's responsibility. It's not up to me to dictate to the customer how they spend their money (or for me to do anything for free). So, for me splitting the tails (perhaps with an extra new main switch upstream...) and a new CU for the new work, while not ideal in many ways, is a legitimate option.


    Yesterday I was called to a new customer. TT supply, no up-front RCD, no RCD’s at all. Ra 160 Ohms. Wylex fuseholders,



    Things like that can be very interesting to analyse in detail. Long enough ago the regs permitted such arrangements - and as long as the circumstances are right, it's not necessarily as dangerous as it might first seem. If the earth fault currents are relatively low and metalwork within reach is effectively bonded together (or isolated from true earth) then the touch voltages within the building could be quite acceptable even without any disconnection at all.


       - Andy.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines