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 6413 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

    Au contraire the noo - See 314.1 (i).



    Au contraire contraire - 314.1 is only about the division of the installation into circuits - circuits are define by overcurrent protective devices - so RCDs are irrelevant to that. (If that wasn't the case we wouldn't be allowed one RCCB feeding multiple MCBs).


    314.2 might be of more interest - 'due account shall be taken of the consequences of of the operation of any single protective device' - but that doesn't say though shall or shalt not, just that you should think about it a bit.


      - Andy.
Reply
  • 0

    Au contraire the noo - See 314.1 (i).



    Au contraire contraire - 314.1 is only about the division of the installation into circuits - circuits are define by overcurrent protective devices - so RCDs are irrelevant to that. (If that wasn't the case we wouldn't be allowed one RCCB feeding multiple MCBs).


    314.2 might be of more interest - 'due account shall be taken of the consequences of of the operation of any single protective device' - but that doesn't say though shall or shalt not, just that you should think about it a bit.


      - Andy.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines