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 102 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 7456 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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.

Zoomup
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
  • 0

    perspicacious:
    but it is up to the responsible person to show that a non-compliant one is safe in the event of a disaster.


    IF it were safe, there wouldn't be a disaster Chris!


    It therefore follows if there is a Court case, it has already shown that it was not safe..................




    Sorry, BOD, that's illogical, or as a lawyer would say, "irrational".


    Negligence requires: (1) a duty of care - usually obvious - who was the electrician who did the work/made the report? (2) a breach of the duty of care - difficult to demonstrate if an installation complies with BS 7671 (and any other applicable standard); (3) a chain of causation.


    It's when an installation has been shown to be non-compliant that the question of breach is more likely to arise. Even then, all Zoomup has to do is to get a credible expert to give evidence that it was reasonable to classify the switch and cable as C3.


    The substantial majority in here seem to be saying C2, but is C3 so fundamentally wrong that it is unreasonable?

Reply
  • 0

    perspicacious:
    but it is up to the responsible person to show that a non-compliant one is safe in the event of a disaster.


    IF it were safe, there wouldn't be a disaster Chris!


    It therefore follows if there is a Court case, it has already shown that it was not safe..................




    Sorry, BOD, that's illogical, or as a lawyer would say, "irrational".


    Negligence requires: (1) a duty of care - usually obvious - who was the electrician who did the work/made the report? (2) a breach of the duty of care - difficult to demonstrate if an installation complies with BS 7671 (and any other applicable standard); (3) a chain of causation.


    It's when an installation has been shown to be non-compliant that the question of breach is more likely to arise. Even then, all Zoomup has to do is to get a credible expert to give evidence that it was reasonable to classify the switch and cable as C3.


    The substantial majority in here seem to be saying C2, but is C3 so fundamentally wrong that it is unreasonable?

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines