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 24 replies
  • Subscribers 45 subscribers
  • Views 4330 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

CHANGES IN AMD 2 RELUCTANCE TO COMPLY

John Peckham

I heard before AMD 2 that compliance with the requirement to install AFDDs where required would stop clients having consumer units upgraded due to the additional cost. 

The requirement to fit as a "shall" is limited to 4 types of installation has anyone experienced a refusal to upgrade the installation with AFDDs when replacing a consumer unit?

Also has anyone experienced any reluctance when upgrading an installation where SPDs are required under the new provisions of AMD 2?

The same question as above, any reluctance to install smoke detectors in domestic premises where an SPD needs to be fitted to the circuit supply the smoke detectors?

Thanks

JP

 

  • 0 in reply to mapj1

    It’s one of those photos you think of something else every time you look at it, as   says the VOELCB is merely an isolation switch that cannot possibly perform its intended purpose.

    There are several C2 codes to consider, I have written a short essay in the comments box on the MWC.

  • 0

    I really don't like the use of T&E with the c.p.c. earthed before the first working RCD (if that's how is it) - just one layer of insulation between L and the whole installation's metalwork being permanently live....

       - Andy.

  • 0 in reply to AJJewsbury

    yes it would be safer in that regard with the CPC cut back at both ends, and I hope its route is ether visible or deeply inaccessible.  The best would probably be to make that VOELCB an RCD of some kind.

    Depending on the cable route for the TnE  to meet regs you might be stuck with a rather unsatisfactory arrangement of cascaded 30mA instants . IF one had a clear slate, a  100mA delay type in a DIN box and the submain run in SWA might be better but I'm not sure how much is truly an immediate danger or just miles off best practice.

    Mike.

  • 0

    We are falling down the rabbit hole that JP wanted us to avoid.

    As far as the landlord, letting agent and Local Authority that HMO has a “valid” EICR which needs renewing in three years time, so it is highly unlikely anyone will discuss requirements for AFDDs until 2025 and given the state the installation there’s more pressing matters that should be dealt with such as an obsolete VOELCB that cannot possibly function and the distribution circuit lacking RCD protection.

    Given that the installation was apparently given a clean bill of health two years ago, I don’t hold much hope out for the installation of AFDDs for many years to come.

    Also as I pointed out earlier, there’s only five high rise blocks of flats in the whole county of Worcestershire that should be having AFDDs installed in replacement consumer units, but three belong to a Housing Association and were completely refurbished a few years ago as sheltered housing, so overall I cannot imagine I will be seeing any AFDDs installed because the Wiring Regulations say they shall be installed.

    I will mention them to the guy with the black and white thatched cottage, but unless his insurance company insists on them I cannot imagine any will be installed.

Community Rules & Guidelines