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 32 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2821 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

Range Cooker Connection Refusal.

Zoomup

A lady today asked me to estimate to do some cooker circuit alterations in her house. She has an old electric range cooker in the kitchen which she is to replace with a new one rated at about 11.2kW.

 

A certain national electrical retailer would not connect up her new and paid for range cooker as the cooker supply is run in 10.00mm2 T&E and protected by a B50 M.C.B. plus R.C.D.

 

The reason given was that the supply is too big and will overload the new cooker.

 

The retailer insisted that the  B50 M.C.B. be replaced by a B40 M.C.B. and the final cooker connection from connection unit to cooker, be run in 6.0mm2, the 10.002 final connection being removed.

 

Comments please.

 

Z.

 

 

 

 

Parents
  • 0

    I think this needs some new regulations in BS7671 because I recently had a case in point.

    A new build, a hall, was designed as a timber-framed structure with all the wiring hidden inside the wall panels. The surface of these was covered with a layer of waferboard and two layers of acoustic plasterboard and skimmed.  There is no provision at all to ever change any wiring or to deal with possible faults or damage. Why accessible ducts were not provided is now a severe problem as some of the wiring (not mains) has been damaged and is impossible to access, and only surface routes that would be very anti-aesthetic are possible. I think the whole installation is not compliant with 513.1, but this must be the fault of the architects, not the electricians responsible for the design, as the only option to them was to hide the wiring in the walls. There was no Electrical Consultant appointed. Further investigation is required!

Reply
  • 0

    I think this needs some new regulations in BS7671 because I recently had a case in point.

    A new build, a hall, was designed as a timber-framed structure with all the wiring hidden inside the wall panels. The surface of these was covered with a layer of waferboard and two layers of acoustic plasterboard and skimmed.  There is no provision at all to ever change any wiring or to deal with possible faults or damage. Why accessible ducts were not provided is now a severe problem as some of the wiring (not mains) has been damaged and is impossible to access, and only surface routes that would be very anti-aesthetic are possible. I think the whole installation is not compliant with 513.1, but this must be the fault of the architects, not the electricians responsible for the design, as the only option to them was to hide the wiring in the walls. There was no Electrical Consultant appointed. Further investigation is required!

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