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. 

Parents Reply
  • 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.