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 6398 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

    Jaymack:

    Sorry, I should have have said that there are 8 circuits involved here, not just a lighting circuit for downstairs and another for upstairs, ditto for the 13A sockets. The only reason I can think of behind the irrational mix, was that the cables were simply too short and should have been lengthened; this is a basic departure from the regulations.


    I am surprised and saddened, that there some who think that it is OK to have this arrangement on a dual RCD board. There were other departures 1. Loose fitting of a clamp to a water pipe for bonding. 2. No bond at the gas meter. 3. A 32A MCB for a radial circuit to a single, twin socket outlet.




    I think that I would prefer to use the nearest two MCBs rather than splice in a six inch length of cable amongst the snakes' wedding.


    As it stands, the 32 A MCB is satisfactory even with 2.5 mm2 cable assuming RM C (including 57 and 58) because even if the socket is overloaded with 2 x 13 A, the cable will not be. After all, what's the difference between that and an unfused spur (Fig 15B)? The danger is, of course, that the circuit might be extended; but the circuit is what it is and not what it might be.

Reply
  • 0

    Jaymack:

    Sorry, I should have have said that there are 8 circuits involved here, not just a lighting circuit for downstairs and another for upstairs, ditto for the 13A sockets. The only reason I can think of behind the irrational mix, was that the cables were simply too short and should have been lengthened; this is a basic departure from the regulations.


    I am surprised and saddened, that there some who think that it is OK to have this arrangement on a dual RCD board. There were other departures 1. Loose fitting of a clamp to a water pipe for bonding. 2. No bond at the gas meter. 3. A 32A MCB for a radial circuit to a single, twin socket outlet.




    I think that I would prefer to use the nearest two MCBs rather than splice in a six inch length of cable amongst the snakes' wedding.


    As it stands, the 32 A MCB is satisfactory even with 2.5 mm2 cable assuming RM C (including 57 and 58) because even if the socket is overloaded with 2 x 13 A, the cable will not be. After all, what's the difference between that and an unfused spur (Fig 15B)? The danger is, of course, that the circuit might be extended; but the circuit is what it is and not what it might be.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines