Company fuse.

[EFLImpudence]

Seems to me that the requirement for an isolator mainly occurs because the consumer's isolator is integrated with the distribution board in the form of a consumer unit. If the consumer had an isolator/switchfuse followed by a distribution board then there would not be a problem.

Well, it would but it may as well be fitted near the cut-out. However, it is the initial fitting that is the problem (working live).

So why should a consumer expect a free isolator when he's cut his costs by integrating an isolator with his distribution board? Of course he should pay

The (poor) customer pays for everything. Who is arguing?

As for the point of supply, that is a matter of contract. The point of supply is declared in the contract for the provision of the supply. That could be changed by the DNO but why should they do so?

Because it would make it safer (with an isolator). Who writes the contract? Does the customer have a say?

It seems incredulous to me that electricity is supplied to everyone's house without a means to isolate it, for whatever reason.
You're not allowed to 'play' with the gas meter but it is fitted with a means of turning it off.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The fee covers them and their electrician but I am not sure about a retest.

I think you can probably guess what they are likely to do about charging for repeat visits....

ban-all-sheds: Thanks for all the points. I have done a DISQ course with a certificate of competence issued. (Valid till 05/11/2015) However, this does not cover my to work under Part P.

This is Part P:

It says nothing about qualifications - if you are competent you may do the work.

We used a Megger MFT1552 meter to test, I see that this has been superseded on web sites,

Manufacturers of anything and everything are always bringing out new models of what they make.

There were no changes to testing requirements in the 17th.

Any suggestions on down-lighters to use?

I would advise none at all.

It's more time, effort and cost for you, and more and more people are coming to realise what a useless and inefficient way they are of lighting rooms, and what a huge amount of work it is to remove them.

More people will not be interested in buying the house because it has them than will not be interested because it doesn't.

(I was going to go low voltage with individual transformers).

http://www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:voltage-bands

 

[JohnW2]

The fitting of isolators ceased in a lot of DNOs as, to be honest, they were a source of faults often by badly made connections on the customer's side. (we tended to use torque screwdrivers when pre-building them onto boards for new supplies) (this is not to suggest we or the suppliers always get it right)
Legally the point of supply has always been the outgoing terminals of the meter, so the fitting of isolators is a grey area (though some meters included an isolator)

So why not fit an isolator prior to the meter? That would solve all the problems you mention above, and would have the added advantage of allowing meter changes to be done without having to pull the fuse. ... or am I missing something?

As others have said, it seems fairly remarkable that it is legal to provide a potentially dangerous service without a means of switching it off at its origin.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[echoes]

So why not fit an isolator prior to the meter?

I guess that would make it remarkably easy to bypass the meter, by removing the deterrent of burns, electrocution and blown fuses which attract supsicion.
Far easier than bypassing a gas meter.

I can see some sense in a meter incorporating a isolator on the customer's side though. Just my -/2

 

[JohnW2]

I guess that would make it remarkably easy to bypass the meter, by removing the deterrent of burns, electrocution and blown fuses which attract supsicion.

That's almost suggesting that something that could be a hazard to the life of a tamperer is being deliberately left there as a deterrent to such tampering. That's akin to implementing potentially dangerous anti-intruder measures in one's home, which I gather is very much illegal (and can result in manslaughter charges).

I can see some sense in a meter incorporating a isolator on the customer's side though. Just my -/2

Two members of my family have such meters.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[echoes]

That's almost suggesting that something that could be a hazard to the life of a tamperer is being deliberately left there as a deterrent to such tampering. That's akin to implementing potentially dangerous anti-intruder measures in one's home, which I gather is very much illegal (and can result in manslaughter charges).

You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment!

But a difference is that such anti-intruder measures are designed to hurt an intruder, and an electricity supply is designed to reliably supply electricity and hurt no-one. One could even argue that isolation before the meter might encourage tampering, and that such tampering is inherently dangerous, therefore it's safer to have no easy means of isolation!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Two members of my family have such meters.

I've got one - it only isolates Line.

 

[JohnW2]

Two members of my family have such meters.

I've got one - it only isolates Line.

I'm merely 'aware of' the two I mentioned, so it's possible that they are also SP.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

But a difference is that such anti-intruder measures are designed to hurt an intruder, and an electricity supply is designed to reliably supply electricity and hurt no-one.

I reckon the lawyers could have hours of fun arguing about that one. I'm sure that one could often try arguing that the 'measures' existed for good reasons, and were 'not designed to hurt anyone'!

One could even argue that isolation before the meter might encourage tampering, and that such tampering is inherently dangerous, therefore it's safer to have no easy means of isolation!

Another minefield - that's akin to suggesting that a woman's choice of clothing may 'encourage rape' - and we all know what happens to people who dare to suggest that (no matter how true it might be!)!

An isolator built into the meter obviously avoids those problems.

Kind Regards, John

 

[echoes]

But a difference is that such anti-intruder measures are designed to hurt an intruder, and an electricity supply is designed to reliably supply electricity and hurt no-one.

I reckon the lawyers could have hours of fun arguing about that one. I'm sure that one could often try arguing that the 'measures' existed for good reasons, and were 'not designed to hurt anyone'!

One could even argue that isolation before the meter might encourage tampering, and that such tampering is inherently dangerous, therefore it's safer to have no easy means of isolation!

Another minefield - that's akin to suggesting that a woman's choice of clothing may 'encourage rape' - and we all know what happens to people who dare to suggest that (no matter how true it might be!)!

An isolator built into the meter obviously avoids those problems.

Kind Regards, John

Minefield indeed. "The supply was asking to be tampered with, your honour. Why else would it have such a provocative and teasing big red switch?" says man.

 

[westie101]

So are you suggesting that we need a means of isolating the supply to an installation, prior to the means of isolating an installation i.e. the main switch in the consumer unit!!

These isolators are absolutely of no benefit to the DNO or supplier, they only benefit electricians who want to work on CUs. So if you wqant legislation to force us to fit them it is up to you trade bodies to ask for that legislation (and no doubt pay for it)


Correct, the isolator will never go before the meter owing to the risk of tampering with the meter, it makes no difference to authorised staff to have to remove the main fuse to change the meter!

Sorry some seem to want your cake and to eat it by getting someone else to invest money to make your job easier. I do NOT buy the safty argument, whatever the circumstances the decision to work live rests with yourselves - no one else. The argument that the DNO/supplier is unreliable as an axcuse to work live is a nonsense!

Regarding applying seals, are you suggesting that "someone" supplies sealing pliers and maintains you on a register so you can remove fuses to change consumer units - I suppose we could and I'm sure some organisation will charge you the electrician for the service.

All the sealing pliers of authorised staff are recorded and the individual number they put on the seals are known, it's so that in the event of an incident we can be identtified!

 

[JohnW2]

So are you suggesting that we need a means of isolating the supply to an installation, prior to the means of isolating an installation i.e. the main switch in the consumer unit!!

Yep. After all, in the worst case scenario, there might not be a functioning main switch in the CU. Furthermore, in a complex installation, there might be several feeds from the meter, in which case I would personally regard a 'single point of isolation' at the origin to be wise.

As has been said, there is no question of a property being supplied with gas without the consumer having a means of turning it off 'at origin'. I use LPG, and the suppliers are almost paranoid about my having an isolation tap (which they regualrly 'inspect') before the supply even enters the building. I don't see why electicity should be any different.

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

Furthermore, in a complex installation, there might be several feeds from the meter, in which case I would personally regard a 'single point of isolation' at the origin to be wise

Fair enough, if that's wht you want you are free to install your own as part of the installation!
If the CU main switch is faulty then that suggests it needs changing!

As I explained above, the point of supply is the outgoing terminals of the meter, after that it is part of the installation which a suitable qualified person should be designing to take account of all of these issues!


In monetry terms we deliver a supply to about 5,000,000 customers. if it cost say £50 per time to fit an isolator that would be £250,000,000. Now a lot of those customers might have an isolator or be in rented accomodation, should they pay to fit tem for the convenience of others?
There is no increase in safety by them being fitted so what benefit, except to electricians is there?

 

[JohnW2]

Fair enough, if that's wht you want you are free to install your own as part of the installation!
If the CU main switch is faulty then that suggests it needs changing! As I explained above, the point of supply is the outgoing terminals of the meter, after that it is part of the installation which a suitable qualified person should be designing to take account of all of these issues!

I understand what you are saying, but still think that the supplier of a dangerous commodity should provide a means of disconnection of their supply, prior to the point at which it ceases to be their responsibility - not the least because there is no telling what some clown may do downstream from there one day. As I've said, natural gas and LPG suppliers (and/or the relevant rules, regulations and laws) insist on such a means of isolation, rather than trying to find excuses not to provide it (even though they could adopt the same attide as DNOs if they so wished).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

In monetry terms we deliver a supply to about 5,000,000 customers. if it cost say £50 per time to fit an isolator that would be £250,000,000. Now a lot of those customers might have an isolator or be in rented accomodation, should they pay to fit tem for the convenience of others?

I'm actually talking about the concept, not the cost or who pays for it. In any event, again, gas customers have no option to decline having (or paying for) the supplier providing an isolation valve.

In any event, what is the cost to a DNO of sending someone out, quite probably twice, to pull and re-insert their fuse?

There is no increase in safety by them being fitted ...

Not even when the main switch in the CU, or the meter tails, burst into flames?

Kind Regards, John.