This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Outbuilding consumer unit

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Coming back to this wretched EICR at my daughter's house


An outbuilding used as an office is supplied by a 6mm^2 T&E carried from the house on a catenary wire.and fused at the house at 32A (RCD protected)

In the garage the the 6mm^2 is split into a 2.5mm^2 for sockets and a 1mm^2 for the lighting

This is coded C2 for the inadequate protection and C3 for using T&E outdoors.  Both of which seem reasonable


Q1  Can I put a two unit CU in the outbuilding with just a 6amp and 16amp MCB or do | need also to provide a two pole switch?

Q2  What do the great and the good think of using T&E outdoors?  Should I replace it with hi-tuf?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Let me cover my backside by saying that I am in no way suggesting that there was any fraudulent intent in the inspection.  The inspector tells me that he has more work than he can cope with and that he did the EICR as a favour to an old client.
  • Ok that was not the intent. Does his report pass the test above? If not then why? I have only one possible answer, not adequately competent.
  • When I did my 16th Edition course around twenty years ago we were told that twin and earth outdoors and exposed to sunlight has a life expectancy of around fifteen years, from subsequent experience I would say that is a fair estimate of the period the cable can be exposed for before there’s noticeable deterioration that warrants its replacement.
  • Change the MCB in the house for a B20 and fit a 5-amp fused connection unit to supply the light.


    That should sort out the C2.
  • ebee:

    "Greater safety afforded due to additional protection, twice. "


    I`d question twice Zoom lad.


    Theoretically say if you take a 7% failure rate then two cascading RCD faults might mean 0.49%.

    That would be the expected maximum protection though.

    If they are in the same enviroment and of same make and class they might both fail for similar reasons so I think difficult to achieve. but perhaps better than twice the chance of one RCD

     


    Traditional car, spare wheel.


    Z.


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    davezawadi (David Stone):

    Ok that was not the intent. Does his report pass the test above? If not then why? I have only one possible answer, not adequately competent.


    I can't say that on a forum he might be reading.

    But his lack of understanding of what a circuit is, and his belief that putting the two legs of a ring through differant knockouts can cause electromagnetic heating is indicative.


  • Only some long-distance trucks carry 2 spares Zoom because they have a lot of wheels, and many none because changing them is very difficult for just the driver. Undoing the wheel nuts needs a 1" impact or huge geared reduction by manual means and a wheel may weigh 80 kg or more. All very difficult. If you really want to try something hard I suggest a 200 hp tractor with water ballasted rear wheels. These may weigh 0.5 tonnes and are very dangerous to move, they try to fall over! Imagine trying to get that on the wheel studs, you need Mr. Universe, or perhaps a tire lifter.
  • Perhaps Zoomy was making the point that one may be better off with a back up.


    My new car doesn't have a spare: it may be because the wheel and tyre are so wide that there would be no boot if one were provided.


    I have a rather older car that has twin spares, but roads were, perhaps, a little rougher in 1931.


    All that said, I have just sold a 15 year old car with an unused spare, so I suspect that, as is often the case, risks are over-stated. ?