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
  • No other problems and a C3 is probably indicated, along with a fairly strong letter pointing out that it needs to be corrected. However, Colin would give this a C2, on the basis he describes above. If not, why not? There are plenty of installations out there like this and we do not have loads of accidents. Why not? Because they are bad but not significantly dangerous without complex extenuating circumstances. Do you see the point that I am making and trying to explain?


    This can be changed in many ways but the present 3 codes are not sufficient. I am fairly happy with C1 &2 but C3 needs to be extended. I suggest a code for specifically, poor quality installations, those which are incomplete or damaged and would not pass Chapter 51 or 52.  This should make the installation unsatisfactory, but not due to danger in our normal understanding of this.


    Another code should be for changes to regulations since installation, this is very confusing to many customers, but should not make installations unsatisfactory. It is a common problem when adverts for electrical services say "Bringing up to latest regulations", making this sound mandatory.


    Has anyone else got any other suggestions?
Reply
  • No other problems and a C3 is probably indicated, along with a fairly strong letter pointing out that it needs to be corrected. However, Colin would give this a C2, on the basis he describes above. If not, why not? There are plenty of installations out there like this and we do not have loads of accidents. Why not? Because they are bad but not significantly dangerous without complex extenuating circumstances. Do you see the point that I am making and trying to explain?


    This can be changed in many ways but the present 3 codes are not sufficient. I am fairly happy with C1 &2 but C3 needs to be extended. I suggest a code for specifically, poor quality installations, those which are incomplete or damaged and would not pass Chapter 51 or 52.  This should make the installation unsatisfactory, but not due to danger in our normal understanding of this.


    Another code should be for changes to regulations since installation, this is very confusing to many customers, but should not make installations unsatisfactory. It is a common problem when adverts for electrical services say "Bringing up to latest regulations", making this sound mandatory.


    Has anyone else got any other suggestions?
Children
No Data