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
  • Replies 28 replies
  • Subscribers 36 subscribers
  • Views 1277 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Advice on compliance with regulations for new kitchen and general wiring question

Jamesb

Hi all, a couple of things:

1. We are looking at getting a new kitchen - live in old house with COB/brick/thatch construction for info. The kitchen fitter sent his electrician a pic of the current Consumer Unit which is a Wylex split load RCD, plastic case and he wants to replace it. The house wiring contains a mix of old and new wiring colours, but I had an EICR about a year ago to comply with my insurance requirements and it passed OK. Is there any good reason for requiring a change? He said something, via the kitchen fitter, along the lines of conforming with current regulations back to the fuse box. Is this really the case as I didn't think so from what I've read? I'm a chartered engineer, but only work on low voltage stuff so need to check what the situation is with people familiar with the regulations working on this day in, day out before I start querying this if it goes ahead.

2. One of the circuits has a 10A MCB feeding a junction box just below the CU which feeds through to some outside lights (old halogens no longer working via armoured cable outside) and a 13a socket just below the CU. The location of socket means it's really just used to plug in the hoover. Where does this stand with regard to the regulations? i.e. a 10A limited MCB feeding a 13A socket and outside lights? For info, I am intending to replace the old halogens with newer LED types so hardly any current there, but looking more closely at it I came to notice this. 

Thanks, James.

Parents
  • 0


    Really helpful replies here thanks guys and it seems with a lot of these kind of things, many people have a slightly different interpretation. I'll try and attach a pic here. Hopefully, this will show it's a 'proper' TN-C-S installation now and not a 'homebrew' effort that gkenyon alludes to. The plastic CU cover has a manufacture date of '09 so I assume it would suggest 17th edition.

    The point raised by Chris about project creep is my big concern that a CU change will then need to be tested and I don't want to get into issues with sign off if they start saying I won't sign off as I don't like this or that and it ends up a long way in a different direction to just making the changes to the existing circuits for the new kitchen.

    If I look at my copy of the Electrician's guide to the building regulations (17th Edition) it states that there is no particular requirement to ensure compliance with the building regs with respect to other part  of the building not affect by the addition. Is this still the case?

    The wiring is all PVC - combination of old and current colours along with some pyro and armoured cables to an outbuilding.

    I guess my next question is that if there are no new appliances being installed (no increased load) and the existing ones are in more or less the same place the new wiring will reflect a move of the socket positions and these subtle changes. If that is the case, would there be a requirement to run a new cable right the way back to the CU, but not necessarily replace the CU?

    Thanks, James.

  • 0 in reply to Jamesb
    Jamesb said:
    I'll try and attach a pic here

    To be fair, if I saw that, I'd be saying that needs sorting out. It's a mess, just a couple of hours would get the cables clipped, sort out the mismatched circuit breaker heights (how does the front fit on?) and make sure there were no holes on the top bigger than required. I can see why a new CU has been recommended, a new CU really would be a benefit with so many circuits on the RCDs.

  • 0 in reply to Jamesb
    Jamesb said:
    The point raised by Chris about project creep is my big concern that a CU change will then need to be tested and I don't want to get into issues with sign off if they start saying I won't sign off as I don't like this or that and it ends up a long way in a different direction to just making the changes to the existing circuits for the new kitchen.

    I never alluded to a 'homebrew' installation.

    The new work (completed by those being paid to do it), if completed under a Part P Registered Person Scheme, would need to conform to BS 7671:2018+A2:2002, regardless of the existing installation. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here? This does not affect the existing installation.

    Jamesb said:
    If I look at my copy of the Electrician's guide to the building regulations (17th Edition) it states that there is no particular requirement to ensure compliance with the building regs with respect to other part  of the building not affect by the addition. Is this still the case?

    The person doing the work of course has to do so in compliance with legislation and relevant standards ... the issue being, what do you want to pay them to do if not conform to standards and legislation?

    (You can, of course, require them to deviate from that, but ...)

    Jamesb said:
    I guess my next question is that if there are no new appliances being installed (no increased load) and the existing ones are in more or less the same place the new wiring will reflect a move of the socket positions and these subtle changes. If that is the case, would there be a requirement to run a new cable right the way back to the CU, but not necessarily replace the CU?

    What is the scope of the 'new work' ? If it's to 'connect new appliances to an existing installation' then of course, that could be done by anyone, and BS 7671 need not come into it.

    However, if changes to the existing installation are necessary (new 'fixed wiring'), then perhaps a re-think?

    What's interesting me, is why the drive towards "do as little as possible"? I don't think we are talking about total project of < £1000 here ?

  • 0 in reply to Jamesb

    Not sure that I would pass that! The fourth MCB from the left is the wrong type for the board and I particularly dislike the unprotected cable holes.

    If the rest of the installation is like that, what else lurks?

  • 0 in reply to Chris Pearson

    Totally agree Chris it was never pretty and on the list to replace!

    Cheers, James.

Reply 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