Fixing TT earthing problems and gas bonding for an EV charger

[flameport]

People have been talking about that alleged requirement for as long as I can remember, but I don't know where it came from.

Guidance Note 8.

 

[StuB]

Yes, as Octopus have confirmed, bonding not required.

I've sent them some more pictures along with some other details just so they can confirm they're happy with my setup.

 

[StuB]

When I did my 16th our lecturer read that out to us, probably from that same document (although we were working to 16th 2004) and made his interpretation, something to the effect of:

If there is a join in a bonding conductor it should be permanent and permanent can be achieved by crimping, soldering, braizing, etc. He even mentioned two wires into one crimped lug makes it permanent and therefore continuous.

It appears to me that has been done in your case and I feel any inspector or even octopussey should have no issue with that installation.

This was certainly something which was regularly and vehemently enforced 20 years ago. However something I used to find which caused issue was an earth bar associated with a submain where services entering the area served would be bonded individually from that earth bar so very far from individual or unbroken from the MET but somehow a second inspection always seemed to override the first.

Hopefully Octopus will share that interpretation too.

 

[StuB]

Guidance Note 8.


View attachment 406803

Thanks for that.

That will likely explain where the info is from and it's interesting to see that what they want to achieve is if any extraneous conductive parts is disconnected it mustn't break the connector to the others which is what would happen if the wires were permanently joined together by crimping or similar.

 

[JohnW2]

Guidance Note 8.

Thanks. My guess was wrong, but I suppose the myth (about an alleged regulatory requirement) it had to have come from somewhere!

The wording of what you quote (with my emboldening) ("...However, it is permitted to collect them collectively or in groups where the the main bonding conductor is looped from one extraneous-conductive part to another,. Where bonding is undertaken in this way, the bonding conductor should remain unbroken at intermediate points ....") the implication is of a 'requirement', and I'm sure many readers would take it as such.

It's perfectly reasonable/sensible advice, but I personally don't think it really should be made to look like a regulatory requirement (when it'snot), do you?

 

[SUNRAY]

Thanks. My guess was wrong, but I suppose the myth (about an alleged regulatory requirement) it had to have come from somewhere!

The wording of what you quote (with my emboldening) ("...However, it is permitted to collect them collectively or in groups where the the main bonding conductor is looped from one extraneous-conductive part to another,. Where bonding is undertaken in this way, the bonding conductor should remain unbroken at intermediate points ....") the implication is of a 'requirement', and I'm sure many readers would take it as such.

It's perfectly reasonable/sensible advice, but I personally don't think it really should be made to look like a regulatory requirement (when it'snot), do you?

Whether it's been corrupted or not it has become a common source of C1's. However as stated in the guidance notes the modus operandi is to prevent 'other' bonded points becoming disconnected when an early one is, crimping 2 wires into one lug successfully achieves that and to date I've not had it rejected at re-inspection.

Hopefully Octopus will share that interpretation too.

Unless the crimped lug fails, unscrewing it from the gas pipe will not affect the water pipe bond, so it achieves the required function.

 

[JohnW2]

Whether it's been corrupted or not it has become a common source of C1's.

That sounds ridiculous. An EICR is surely meant to reflect the state of an installation at the time it is inspected? If, at that time, the boding is all satisfactorily connected, I really can't see how a C1 could be justified - particularly given that the situation would be fully compliant with BS7671.

However as stated in the guidance notes the modus operandi is to prevent 'other' bonded points becoming disconnected when an early one is ...

Indeed, and that's why I said it is 'sensible guidance'. However, it is not a regulatory requirement, and so surely should not be treated as if it were?

 

[Risteard]

These companies cannot make up their own wiring regulations.

No, but they can refuse to install unless it meets their own particular requirements.

 

[pete01]

A continuous wire makes perfect sense, if it gets knocked off the water by some Mr Muscle it still continuous on to the gas?

 

[Ragnar_AT]

Surely unsatisfactory but functional bonding would be a C2 considering it would only be dangerous if two faults were to occur (bonding conductor disconnected and a fault introducing voltage to the pipework)?

 

[SUNRAY]

Yes I know it's rediculous , requires 2 faults, etc etc
But as we all know the EICR system is a money printing system and not a safety check.

 

[StuB]

No, but they can refuse to install unless it meets their own particular requirements.

This is it in a nutshell, they have a number of their own rules such as only using a separate CU regardless of what consumer unit is actually installed already.

As the charger is tied in with a car purchase we have to have Octopus install it hence trying to satisfy their requirements.

 

[JohnW2]

I can only remember the continuous myth relating to the gas as it is somehow more important - or maybe water companies know there is no such rule.

Oh, I thought the myth applied to both.

Now that (thanks to flameport) we now know 'where it came from', it's clear that the 'guidance' is very general, relating to any situation in which there are two or more extraneous-c-ps that require main bonding, and is in no way specific to gas pipes.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Now that (thanks to flameport) we now know 'where it came from', it's clear that the 'guidance' is very general, relating to any situation in which there are two or more extraneous-c-ps that require main bonding, and is in no way specific to gas pipes.

Ok, but, as you indicate, it is merely 'guidance' because the author thinks it should be - unlike the authors of the regulations.

 

[JohnW2]

Ok, but, as you indicate, it is merely 'guidance' because the author thinks it should be - unlike the authors of the regulations.

That statement would be all veryt well were it not for the fact that the author of the guidance and the authors of the regulations are, at least 'officially', one and the same (namely "the IET").

I have written, and others have agreed, that the guidance is perfectly reasonable/sensible, but I don't think the IET should word it in a manner that will make many people think (incorrectly) that it is a regulatory requirement.

If they really thought that 'continuous' bonding conductors is essential, it would only have needed an additional sentence to make that a requirement of BS7671 - but they clearly didn't feel that was needed.