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 32 subscribers
  • Views 9767 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

Parents
  • 0
    I think that this is going too far, Gentlemen. We do not criticise newer posters or try to take them apart. Whilst the primary insulation might be exposed, it is still impossible to get a shock from it and this "Inspector" seems to believe that sheathed cables are "double insulated" for safety which is not the case, see my SWA post. Cables without grommets need serious mechanical movement to even begin to be damaged by the hole edges (as you all know). This is a case of poor workmanship from both points of view, and really only deserves a C3, or if damage is visible a C2. A metal consumer unit cannot "liven up" unless the install is TT, A fault here will pop the head fuse. A neutral fault is not serious.


    I am seriously fed up with these ridiculous arguments with BAD EICRs, this is simply a demonstration that the qualification requirements are entirely inadequate, in that any Tom, Dick, or Harry seems to think they can do a competent job. It is now completely obvious to everyone who reads here that this is NOT the case. EICRs are simply being used as a method to get unnecessary work, by means of meaningless inspection reports. This is fraud by any name, and we need a qualification system with real, preferably dangerous, teeth. These need to be being struck off the competent persons register personally, fines, and in the worst cases prison. Regulation similar to the legal or financial areas of life is needed, all this has gone on far too long.
Reply
  • 0
    I think that this is going too far, Gentlemen. We do not criticise newer posters or try to take them apart. Whilst the primary insulation might be exposed, it is still impossible to get a shock from it and this "Inspector" seems to believe that sheathed cables are "double insulated" for safety which is not the case, see my SWA post. Cables without grommets need serious mechanical movement to even begin to be damaged by the hole edges (as you all know). This is a case of poor workmanship from both points of view, and really only deserves a C3, or if damage is visible a C2. A metal consumer unit cannot "liven up" unless the install is TT, A fault here will pop the head fuse. A neutral fault is not serious.


    I am seriously fed up with these ridiculous arguments with BAD EICRs, this is simply a demonstration that the qualification requirements are entirely inadequate, in that any Tom, Dick, or Harry seems to think they can do a competent job. It is now completely obvious to everyone who reads here that this is NOT the case. EICRs are simply being used as a method to get unnecessary work, by means of meaningless inspection reports. This is fraud by any name, and we need a qualification system with real, preferably dangerous, teeth. These need to be being struck off the competent persons register personally, fines, and in the worst cases prison. Regulation similar to the legal or financial areas of life is needed, all this has gone on far too long.
Children
No Data

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