DNO connection

I was just out of nappies when this connection was made in 1960. One of the lads flagged it on an EICR as a mild matter of concern, probably because I have made it clear that taped up connections that we often see at luminaires need to be considered as not properly enclosed. The client duly contacted the DNO. They are happy that it remains safe, although didn’t put it in writing. It probably is, and to be honest, apart from reading the meter, I don’t think anyone else has been in the intake since JFK bumped Richard Nixon out of office. 

  • That tape must have better adhesive than modern ones.

  • looks like the traditional  "Empire Brand"  black cloth tape to me, before the preferred cloth tape all changed to yellow cambric.

    What are we looking at? bolted joints to 3 current transformers ? I suppose it would be in a box nowadays, but if the binding is tight, then it is at least singly insulated.


    PS as far as I can tell 'Empire' are now a tradename of a non sticky 'gym tape' wrap for protecting hands.

  • I'll raise you the official PME conversion on the 400A TPN supply to our factory!

    Note where the N & E are combined..

    This was done live..... I'm glad they didn't tap the wrong tail!

  • I suppose in those days the cotton braid over the rubber insulation counted as a kind of sheath - giving a rough equivalent of insulated & sheathed. So maybe two layers of tape...?

       - Andy.

  • Given the asbestos everywhere, I'm not surprised nobody wants to touch it.

  • I too noticed the stickers. For a number of years, I occupied an office which had several.

    The point is that so long as it is not disturbed, there is no risk. However, if you do have to open those enclosures, would it be with full PPI and a sealed work space?

  • In my view this installation does not comply with the ESQCR 2002.

    If the DNO have refused to upgrade and maintain the is installation on the consumer premises then there is a failure of statutory duty.

    Report the installation with a photograph attached to the HSE asking them to investigate the DNO for the failure to comply with Regulation 24 of the ESQCR 2002. 

    I would think that they do not have the resources or money to prosecute but they could serve an improvement notice on the DNO which would cause them to take some urgent action.

    I would also ask them to investigate the competence of the DNO inspector who stated that the installation was safe.



  • ESQCR 2002

    or perhaps ESQCR (NI) 2012 ?

  • John, is there any guidance (such as case law) on the meaning of, "under the control of the consumer" please? Is the key holder to the room, "in control", or does it involve permission, and so on?

    ETA: by, "permission" I am thinking about permission to interfere (for want of a better word) with the intake in the same way that a householder is not permitted to remove the DNO's fuse.

  • Maybe the DNO inspector was used to a more lax attitude to bare conductors, perhaps coming from a background where things like this are deemed acceptable. 
    As for the OP, the intake is in a basement where outer and inner doors are locked shut at all times. Nonetheless, I fully respect JPs strong views on the issue. It certainly wouldn’t be the sort of building where appropriate managerial oversight could be considered to be in mitigation.