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 2279 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!
  • 0

    tattyinengland:

    HI Chris


    I'm willing to bet we have all learned the same way - by making mistakes sometimes.



    Yes you shouldn't make the sme mistake twice. Even better is to learn from somebody else's mistakes so perhaps this thread will help in that respect.
    Even with the DB main switch off, assume that the neighbours house electrics have crept into your property over the last century and wave the wand around before cutting/working on the cabling.


    I can be absolutely certain on that one - the house has an aerial supply all of its own.
  • 0
    Sort to say it Chris, but it is not worthy of a code on an EICR and you got a shock because you did not follow the correct method of work.


    I have done it myself, I went to change a PIR operated outside light and flicked all the lighting circuit MCBs off and the switch inside the entrance door, however the light was connected to a socket circuit with a fused connection unit tucked away in a cupboard. Another time I turned a kitchen light off at the MCB in the CU which was in the same room and saw it go out, so I jumped up on the hop up to start work and found out the hard way that the ceiling rose was connected to two circuits.


    One day we might not get away with it, so keep testing.


    Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    I was working on preparing an EICR today, there are two SFCUs on a socket circuit supply lighting in the garden, no one is going to thank me for trying to condemn them.


     Andy Betteridge
  • 0
    063cd132030b0728d101d3e502d05383-huge-20200211_110124.jpg

    One from this morning. 

    Andy B.
  • 0
    Failure to comply with 134.1.1 doesn't really merit a code, but apart from the cross connexion somewhere, that's a right old snakes' wedding! To my way of thinking, it takes very little extra effort to be neat and tidy.


    What code did you give? C2 or FI for me.
  • 0

    Sparkingchip:
    063cd132030b0728d101d3e502d05383-huge-20200211_110124.jpg

    One from this morning. 

    Andy B. 




    Reminds a bit of that old chestnut. Two rings, one leg of each ring into one fuseway and the other leg of each ring into another fuseway. Quite entertaining and a good prove dead example

  • 0
    So you are inspecting (a sample of) sockets. Do you prove each and every one dead before you give the wires a wee tug; or perhaps just the first one?
  • 0
    IMO - no code, update labelling on the DB for clarity, order volt stick.


    Pete
  • 0
    Well I`m a code 3 on that
  • 0

    ebee:




    Sparkingchip:
    063cd132030b0728d101d3e502d05383-huge-20200211_110124.jpg

    One from this morning. 

    Andy B. 




    Reminds a bit of that old chestnut. Two rings, one leg of each ring into one fuseway and the other leg of each ring into another fuseway. Quite entertaining and a good prove dead example


     




    Unsurprisingly the issue involved the 32 amp MCB to the right hand side,the two conductors that had continuity ended up in the 32 and the rest in the 16. I only wanted to connect the new brown conductors that’s in the top of the picture.


    Andy 

Community Rules & Guidelines