Wiring 'safe Zones' near a consumer unit. Pedantic concern after inspection.

Yet another jobsworth who is not familiar with BS 7671!

522.6.202 A cable installed in a wall or partition at a depth of less than 50 mm ...


(i) ... Where the cable is connected to a point, accessory, or switchgear ...


IMHO a consumer unit is a type of switchgear, so all is well (even with T&E).

I am in total agreement with the previous post. I would expect cables to run vertically, horizontally and rearwards from a CU and would consider all to be in the prescribed zones.

The footprint of the consumer unit creates both horizontal and vertical safe zones.

It begs the question: How else are the cables supposed to be routed in order to enable them to enter into a CU? (Other than straight through the wall into the rear of the consumer unit)

Clipped direct; in conduit; in trunking; etc.

People bring with them their habits, sometimes on the strength of being told once that something is not allowed. Unthinking, they take this as fact and continue to apply the narrative fallacy. It becomes an act of faith, and is applied indiscriminately. It gets passed on to others, until robustly challenged; but even then, there will be a digging in of heels-you are questioning someones faith in "what they have always done". The infection rate of nonsense is plus one in Sparky land, so the uninfected are always behind the curve in the minority, having to fight a rearguard action to survive.


The exact thing happened to me 20 years ago during a NICEY annual inspection. Simply the Inspector was not quite sure, so, as they will always do- you are obviously inferior so are guilty until proven innocent?  -they shoot from the hip "that contravenes wiring regs", expecting you to back down and rip it all out, after all , they call the shots in the closed shop of sparky registration. Call their bluff and the bluster evaporates. But they will likely try it on again with a tame contractor.


I would suggest that, presently, the vast majority of trading electricians in a firm or as an individual entity, have been exposed to what is, to all intent and purposes, mandatory registration of a "scheme" . The consistency of scheme Inspector application of BS7671 is wayward, to be polite. Of course most registrees will accept without question what the scheme Inspector tells them and the nonsense continues.  You pay your money for the indulgence after all.

The problem is very clear, the qualifications of the Scheme inspector should be exemplary, in other words they are not just another registered spark! This is useless, they should have to take an exam with a 99% fail mark on BS7671, and a similar practical, of course, the one thing they do not do is look it up in the BBB, which they should with any remark or comment on the work being "inspected".  Proof is evidence that they know, waving the book aside proves that they don't! I have seen both things.... Which scheme would you like some extra work from Chris?

So how does he expect the cables to be routed to a consumer unit at the correct height or are all outgoing circuits to be wired in swa.  If the council has sent this person out ask for your money back.  


Gary

davezawadi (David Stone):

Which scheme would you like some extra work from Chris?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


In fact being an assessor is a good way of keeping up to date. The first time I ever heard of "umami" was in the course of an exam. The candidate seemed to know what he was talking about and the examiners couldn't possibly lose face by admitting that they had never heard of it, so he had to pass. ?

Back to the OP with another thought, the reason given by the LA Inspector at first fix is incorrect, if we leave it purely as 522.6.202 in isolation. But there may be other situations where it is not quite the correct thing to do. The section is 522.6 [impact]. In my opinion you start with 522.6.1, consider where the cables are going, what type and what  may or may not happen to that bit of wall from the top of the CU to the ceiling. Most of the time it is fine, but what if you know or have been told that the CU is going to be enclosed in its own cupboard, perhaps matching similar cupboards in the area? I suppose that switchgear is no longer that obvious to someone deciding to do a bit of DIY shelving. As the potential target is now fairly wide, much more than your typical 150mm width, a direct hit is more likely. Where the cables are installed can now be in an unexpected position.

Re: Chris above


And I thought Latin was a dead language! It roughly translates to" who holds the custodians (the inspector) in custody", in other words who inspects the inspectors? A very good question! Certainly, the Schemes don't seem to.