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 32 subscribers
  • Views 8560 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

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.

  • 0
    My OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE INSTALLATION in terms of its suitability for continued use is Satisfactory.


    "Satisfactory" according to my dictionary = acceptable but not outstanding or perfect.

    adjective
    1. fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect.

      "he didn't get a satisfactory answer"




    Two unearthed new metal plate light switches coded as C3. Improvement recommended.


    Why not C2? "Potentially dangerous-urgent remedial action required." I don't consider them to be immediately dangerous. I inspected behind them as to cable condition and switch condition. Anyway, everything is potentially dangerous.


    "Potential" = Having the capacity to develop into something in the future. The flat owner has been made aware of the non earthed switches and it is now up to him to deal with the C3 coded issue efficiently. He has been alerted. My job is done.


    Z.










  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    regarding the switch observation, what classification code was it given?


    Still very quiet............


    Regards


    BOD
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    "Satisfactory" according to my dictionary = acceptable but not outstanding or perfect.


    I wonder if your PI insurer would take the same stance? Regarding the definition, not the compiler that is!


    Regards


    BOD


  • 0
    Zoom


    Yes I should have said a Class 1 light fitting. How did you code the un-earthed light switches?
  • 0

    perspicacious:
    "Satisfactory" according to my dictionary = acceptable but not outstanding or perfect.


    I wonder if your PI insurer would take the same stance? Regarding the definition, not the compiler that is!


    Regards


    BOD


     




    My P.L. insurer would be more concerned if: 1. I had not found the non earthed metal switches.


    AND


    2. I had not recommended that an improvement was needed noting the reason why.


    Z.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    JP


    From above:

    Two unearthed new metal plate light switches coded as C3. Improvement recommended.


    Regards


    BOD
  • 0

    John Peckham:

    Zoom


    Yes I should have said a Class 1 light fitting. How did you code the un-earthed light switches?




    We all seem to be posting at the same time John. Please see above as to the coding and my reasoning.


    Z.

  • 0
    P.S. The first floor flat has recently been refurbished and is currently unoccupied. The owner has ample time to effect improvements before tenants move in.


    Z.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    My P.L. insurer would be more concerned if: 1. I had not found the non earthed metal switches.

    AND

    2. I had not recommended that an improvement was needed noting the reason why.


    But you have still classed the installation as Satisfactory even in light of the signed declaration:


    Overall assessment of the installation in terms of its suitability for continued use

                                                 SATISFACTORY/UNSATISFACTORY


    This declaration is standalone and I for one would not wish to try and explain why I had given a Code C3 that should only be given due consideration.


    We all know how much consideration a consumer faced with remedial work will give it............


    As to the view that it is unlikely to happen, if you're in court, it did happen! Besides which, people still buy lottery tickets knowing that it is unlikely to be the jackpot ticket...... But it could happen............ There was some time ago a comparison between the likelihood of getting 4, 5, 6 numbers correlated with loss of limbs, sight etc. Not good reading.


    Regards


    BOD



  • 0
    Zoom


    Your engineering judgement, your report and your signature so your Pi on the line and your kn*b on the chopping block if things go wrong. I am not as brave as you and I suspect I am in the same boat as the BOD.

Community Rules & Guidelines