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 23 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2286 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

Coding muddled circuits

Chris Pearson
This isn't quite what happened ...


You are doing a PIR on a property which has had about three phases of alterations. The householder wants to retain power so that she may use Wifi for her work, so each circuit is locked off individually. Whilst inspecting the downstairs lights, you undo a switch which controls an outdoor luminaire beside a door leading from the dining room to the garden. You get a shock (both literally and figuratively). ?


FI reveals that the lamp was fed from the upstairs lighting circuit.


I think that such a situation is rather dangerous. One might argue that safe isolation should be applied to every accessory, but I think that it would be reasonable for an ordinary person to change a broken switch. It isn't so much a matter of one fault to danger, but one repair to danger.


It also means that if the CU is marked "downstairs lights" and "upstairs lights", the markings are inappropriate.


C2 seems rather extreme - a lot of effort might be required to separate the circuits.

C3 gets my vote.

no code seems reasonable subject to the installation being sound in all other respects.


Interested to hear your views!
Parents
  • 0
    I think we have all been there, some of us have a pair of cutters with a bit missing to remind us to isolate the right circuit, and then to double check - even if for the DIYer it is as simple as turning the lights on before pulling the fuse and then checking they have gone out before opening up the fitting.


    Had it been labelled 'lights one' and 'lights two' or completely unlabelled then that would have been fine, as it would have forced you to check ,as quite often lights are 'original house' and 'extension' on two circuits, rather than up and down.

    I fear you have to chalk it  to experience, and to scrawl  '& outside' in sharpie or soft pencil if you want to protect the next guy in. In terms of code it could be C3, it is only dangerous because you have the installation in bits, and that is neither normal operation nor a fault.

Reply
  • 0
    I think we have all been there, some of us have a pair of cutters with a bit missing to remind us to isolate the right circuit, and then to double check - even if for the DIYer it is as simple as turning the lights on before pulling the fuse and then checking they have gone out before opening up the fitting.


    Had it been labelled 'lights one' and 'lights two' or completely unlabelled then that would have been fine, as it would have forced you to check ,as quite often lights are 'original house' and 'extension' on two circuits, rather than up and down.

    I fear you have to chalk it  to experience, and to scrawl  '& outside' in sharpie or soft pencil if you want to protect the next guy in. In terms of code it could be C3, it is only dangerous because you have the installation in bits, and that is neither normal operation nor a fault.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines