The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

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 157 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 9519 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Ring Main at Consumer unit

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
My daughter has just had an electrical safety check done and I suspect that the electrician has been over zeleous..

Would anyone care to comment.


There is no grommet where the meter tails enter the consumer unit and the outer insulation stops just short of the knockout.

He has graded this C1.   Now my opinion is that that does not present an  an immediate threat to the safety of personell

It needs fixing but surely only a C2?


More intriguing.  He gives a C3 to the ring circuit because the two legs enter the consumer unit through separate knock outs.  I can't find that in the regs


And finally an old chestnut which has been discussed before.   A C3 because two radial "circuits" are served by a single breaker..  I have always argued that the definition of a circuit is that it is served by a single breaker.  Certainly if both radials were brought to a junction box outside the CU and then connected to the breaker by a single cable it would meet the definition of a radial..


Thanks for your attention

  • 0
    "More intriguing.  He gives a C3 to the ring circuit because the two legs enter the consumer unit through separate knock outs.  I can't find that in the regs".


    If one leg of a ring final circuit enters with L, N and C.P.C. through one hole, and the second leg with its L,N and C.P.C. enters through another separate hole all is o.k. There is no problem at all.


    Z.
  • 0
    "And finally an old chestnut which has been discussed before.   A C3 because two radial "circuits" are served by a single breaker..  I have always argued that the definition of a circuit is that it is served by a single breaker.  Certainly if both radials were brought to a junction box outside the CU and then connected to the breaker by a single cable it would meet the definition of a radial.."


    Is there any chance of overloading here?


    Z.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    No.  But that is given as separate C2
  • 0
    "Is there any chance of overloading here?" OCPD should take care of that no matter how many radials make that circuit
  • 0
    dcbwhaley:

    There is no grommet where the meter tails enter the consumer unit and the outer insulation stops just short of the knockout.

    He has graded this C1.   Now my opinion is that that does not present an  an immediate threat to the safety of personell

    It needs fixing but surely only a C2?


    I agree - C1 would be for bare copper and potentially isolate or fix there and then, but either way, it needs to be fixed. IMHO tails should enter through a gland for security. The lack of the outer sheath troubles me more than the lack of a grommet.


  • 0
    Out of his depth comes to mind… C2 for the tails unless you can stick your finger in and touch something live. We have final ring circuits now because we love a name change but seriously it’s just something he’s made up must be loads of legs passing through different holes just in back boxes. As to two radials on one breaker it’s again perfectly ok.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I agree.  I have advised her to have a new 10th edition CU fitted with more ways so that each "circuit" can have its own fuse. Having upstairs and downstairs lights on one breaker is not good practice if not a code
  • 0
    dcbwhaley:

    I agree.  I have advised her to have a new 10th edition CU fitted with more ways so that each "circuit" can have its own fuse. Having upstairs and downstairs lights on one breaker is not good practice if not a code


    We are currently on the 18th edition.


    Gary


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    My daughter has just had an electrical safety check done and I suspect that the electrician has been over zeleous..

    Would anyone care to comment.


    I find it odd that only three items have been questioned out of what I suspect are many more recorded defects. The end result is still unsatisfactory and remedial work is required.


    Regards


    BOD
  • 0
    Looking at these things, the inspector is not competent to do an EICR, and so none of the observations can be believed at all. dcbwhaley should note that a new CU is exactly what this inspector wants to fit, and none of the points make that necessary. You need to not pay for this EICR (and if you have one I would like a copy for research purposes) and to have a new one by a suitably qualified electrician, ask for a C&G 2391 certificate for the inspector, suitable insurance certificates for PI and PL liability, and a full training record. You may then find that little or no work is required.

    my email davezawadi (at) yahoo.co.uk, thanks.


    David CEng.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines