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 7466 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
    Legally the test is 'is it reasonable to code this as a C3 ?' i.e. recommend but not force immediate improvements

    or C2  'potentially dangerous, fix ASAP'


    So then the next line is 'how would a reasonable electrician code it?' which has been the test of this discussion.

    I think we'd all agree it is not immediate danger requiring the place to be locked off until remedied, though there is more than a consensus supporting C2, potentially dangerous.


    So the punter has not been told  'fine and dandy, carry  on', but equally they have not been told ' fix this now, it could kill you tomorrow'


    Given the fuzziness of some advice around  EICR codes,  and the fact we have not seen it - there may be other factors we do not know that make it more dangerous - damp floor, house full of nudists or fiddle fingered kids , rubber wiring perishing,  or less dangerous, upstairs wooden floor, no earthed objects nearby, PVC cable, only occasional use.. that could make a judgement call shift either way.

    Yes it is not to regs, and in backside covering mode, I might err towards the tighter code, but I can see a case for not doing so, so long as it is made clear it is not right.
Reply
  • 0
    Legally the test is 'is it reasonable to code this as a C3 ?' i.e. recommend but not force immediate improvements

    or C2  'potentially dangerous, fix ASAP'


    So then the next line is 'how would a reasonable electrician code it?' which has been the test of this discussion.

    I think we'd all agree it is not immediate danger requiring the place to be locked off until remedied, though there is more than a consensus supporting C2, potentially dangerous.


    So the punter has not been told  'fine and dandy, carry  on', but equally they have not been told ' fix this now, it could kill you tomorrow'


    Given the fuzziness of some advice around  EICR codes,  and the fact we have not seen it - there may be other factors we do not know that make it more dangerous - damp floor, house full of nudists or fiddle fingered kids , rubber wiring perishing,  or less dangerous, upstairs wooden floor, no earthed objects nearby, PVC cable, only occasional use.. that could make a judgement call shift either way.

    Yes it is not to regs, and in backside covering mode, I might err towards the tighter code, but I can see a case for not doing so, so long as it is made clear it is not right.
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