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 80 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 6390 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

Obvious departures from the regulations at first glance at a new consumer unit.

Jaymack
I was asked to give an EICR on an domestic property which is to be placed on the market (part P applicable). I found that a builder as part of the other renovation work, (new doors, windows and kitchen etc.) has carried out the installation of a new metal consumer unit. On first opening this dual RCD unit, the 2 lighting circuits were on one R.C.D., and the 2 final ring circuits on the other R.C.D,, it was obvious also, that some wires to the new CB's were short and not lengthened, resulting in a bird's nest at the M.C.B.''s.


Plainly, a qualified electrician hadn't carried out the work. What would the readers as registered electricians have done ?. 1. Walk away. 2. Propose to have an E.I.C.R. carried out (UNSATISFACTORY), then carry out the rectification work and issue MWC's.3. Rectify the obvious departures, issue M.W.C.'s and then issue a SATISFACTORY E.I.C.R. 


Jaymack
Parents
  • 0

    davezawadi:

    Both of those are a bit dodgy from the description Chris, 314.1 (iii) is possibly something which could be improved, but 2 circuits or more is not a requirement as such A quick swap around of a couple of MCB's would fix it anyway.



    I wondered whether the CU might have been wired in this fashion because the conductors of the socket circuits would not reach any further. My principal concern would be the loss of all lighting if the RCD trips. C3 at most.

    Poor workmanship does not really cover tidy wiring of CUs, it is more proper support of cables and equipment, no exposed primary insulation etc.

    Difficult to see how you could code poor workmanship! Any other defect, for example exposed primary insulation, would be covered specifically, in this case 526.8.
Reply
  • 0

    davezawadi:

    Both of those are a bit dodgy from the description Chris, 314.1 (iii) is possibly something which could be improved, but 2 circuits or more is not a requirement as such A quick swap around of a couple of MCB's would fix it anyway.



    I wondered whether the CU might have been wired in this fashion because the conductors of the socket circuits would not reach any further. My principal concern would be the loss of all lighting if the RCD trips. C3 at most.

    Poor workmanship does not really cover tidy wiring of CUs, it is more proper support of cables and equipment, no exposed primary insulation etc.

    Difficult to see how you could code poor workmanship! Any other defect, for example exposed primary insulation, would be covered specifically, in this case 526.8.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines