This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Shock Likelihood at Switch.

Mornin' All,


I have just inspected and tested a renovated  old flat's wiring. The original lighting wiring in places has no circuit protective conductor. The owner has installed metal plate light switches to two positions with wooden back boxes. At these two positions there is no circuit protective conductor. The flat has a new R.C.B.O. consumer unit and all other wiring is good.


I have recommended that the switches have a C.P.C. installed (difficult and disruptive) or be changed to all insulated types.


Just what is the shock risk at these two switch positions? What is the likelihood of the metal plates becoming live due to a fault? Has anyone every seen a metal plate switch break down so that the plates becomes live?


Thanks,


Z.

Parents
  • Let's put an end to this mass hysteria. It appears to be catching and getting out of control..


    The facts.


    1. Flat owner installs two new chrome plated metal light switches on an old circuit with no C.P.C. in original wooden boxes.


    2. I  produce an E.I.C.R. and state that the switches need earthing or changing to all insulated types. I code this as a C3, "Improvement recommended".


    3. Some say that the code should have been a C2, "Potentially dangerous, urgent remedial action required". This would have made the overall assessment of the whole installation "unsuitable" for continued  use.


    The ball is now in the flat owner's court and it is up to him to act to rectify any deficiencies.


    End of.


    Z.


Reply
  • Let's put an end to this mass hysteria. It appears to be catching and getting out of control..


    The facts.


    1. Flat owner installs two new chrome plated metal light switches on an old circuit with no C.P.C. in original wooden boxes.


    2. I  produce an E.I.C.R. and state that the switches need earthing or changing to all insulated types. I code this as a C3, "Improvement recommended".


    3. Some say that the code should have been a C2, "Potentially dangerous, urgent remedial action required". This would have made the overall assessment of the whole installation "unsuitable" for continued  use.


    The ball is now in the flat owner's court and it is up to him to act to rectify any deficiencies.


    End of.


    Z.


Children
No Data