No Isolator

[1john]

It's got nothing to do with interpretation, it's a simple case of reading and understanding. Hardly rocket science!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Should it not have an isolator in the room (pull cord) or just outside of the room, switch?

There is no explicit requirement for one.

132.15.1 says:

Effective means, suitably placed for ready operation, shall be provided so that all voltage may be cut off from every installation, from every circuit thereof and from all equipment, as may be necessary to prevent or remove danger

Clearly an MCB is effective.

"Suitably placed for ready operation"? No definition, but nobody seems to get agitated about the position of CUs in general, or how readily the MCBs can be operated, so clearly there is no generic concern about whether CUs should be under the stairs or in cupboards or up against ceilings etc.

"As may be necessary"? No definition, and any phrase like that is designed to be unspecific and to require the assessment of the designer responsible.


So, should it have one? It's widely regarded as good practice but as we know it's often implemented by placing the isolator inside a cupboard anyway.

Not having one is not a contravention of the Wiring Regulations.

 

[1john]

Thats well put BAS, I was going along the lines of "it doesn't state there needs to be one but you would be stupid not to have one"

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

I wasn't pulling you up for asking a question, I was generally interested what you think the isolator is for since you asked the following question..

Should it not have an isolator in the room (pull cord) or just outside of the room, switch?

I did not ask what it was for, I asked if one should be present.

FWIW, i don't think that Col was being awkward or pedantic towards you. He is correctly asking what is the intended purpose of the switch, in the opinion of the person who designed/installed the isolator. Depending on this design choice, it influences the percieved need for a local isolator.

As im sure you'll see from the subsequent posts in this thread and probably 100's of other threads across various websites, this subject will always create disagreements.

It certainly is not rocket science, but it isn't straight forward either to a lot of people.

If you chose to read 132.15 yourself, you'll see it doesn't really help you find the answer. Due to this, if you then went further and read the whole of section 537, you'll perhaps understand why there is disagreement on the necessity of a local isolator for the shower.

 

[skenk]

Check the manufacturers instructions as with showers they usually have a requirement for a double-pole isolating switch (and this needs to be followed for compliance with wiring regs). Either a pull-cord inside or switch outside should be fine.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

Skenks post arrived whilst i was typing, i was going to edit my post to include the point he made, but that would seem a bit cheeky, but i agree.

If the MIs call for it, then fit it

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Check the manufacturers instructions as with showers they usually have a requirement for a double-pole isolating switch (and this needs to be followed for compliance with wiring regs).

That's true.

Either a pull-cord inside or switch outside should be fine.

Or a DP MCB/RCBO?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[sparkiedave]

I was also told that if the Isolator was not in the same room, it should be possible to lock it off if it is being used as an isolator for safe maintenance, none of the double pole shower switches I've seen would satisfy this, but I've not met a spark who doesn't put one in anyway

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Good articulation,

And accurate and truthful.

but irresponsible nonsense to be grabbed at by every cheapskate bodging cowboy that reads this thread.

It is neither nonsense nor is it irresponsible.

Misleading people because you do not like the truth, or because you don't think they can be trusted with it is unacceptable.

Well done BAS, I wonder if your pronouncement/declaration will lead to anyones injury or death.

You're free to wonder that if you wish.

Local isolators are definitely required by reg 132.15.1,

No they are not.

If you believe that they are then please show where 132.15.1 definitely says that local isolators are required.

thats why they are installed by all the major contractors, and they don't do anything thats not required.

Maybe they have difficulty in reading and comprehending plain English.

 

[ericmark]

The use of isolators as already said has a number of considerations. First has to be supply type as although with a TN supply 537.1.2 says single pole switch is allowed (Note Amended July 2008) one is reminded that 537.2.2.1 applies with TT systems so unless the consumer unit has double pole MCB’s switching off a MCB is not good enough.
537.3.2.2 refers to clearly visible and with consumer units often out of sight then they would not be good enough plus of course problems with locking off (537.2.2.4).
314 DIVISION OF INSTALLATION applies of course and if one needs to switch off whole supply to isolate one item that can’t comply. This of course raises the question of use single pole MCB/RCBO on any TT system but that should be discussed on a separate thread. The same applies to 132.12 and access as to my mind consumer units under the stairs often no longer comply specially with consideration of Part M building regulations.
As a result I would always fit an isolator to a shower to ensure I have not fallen foul of the regulations. However if I was doing a PIR I would have to be very careful before saying it did not comply.