You never know - with a bit of 'luck', there might be some silicone around it!
Kind Regards, John
Is An Isolator In A Shower/bath Area Acceptable
- Thread starter ppuch1
- Start date
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,728
- Reaction score
- 2,632
- Country
I hate it as much as the next man, especially the cable that is clipped direct.
But, as RF says:
As for moisture wicking up the cord, it may get so far, but it even if it manages to get to the top (which I doubt) it will fail to reach the switch mechanism because the cord joint will stop it.
You could legitimately note on the EICR any IP breach made by the surface entry cable.
EDIT. Sorry John, PBOD..... Another case of me not reading the whole thread...
But, as RF says:
As for moisture wicking up the cord, it may get so far, but it even if it manages to get to the top (which I doubt) it will fail to reach the switch mechanism because the cord joint will stop it.
You could legitimately note on the EICR any IP breach made by the surface entry cable.
EDIT. Sorry John, PBOD..... Another case of me not reading the whole thread...
You are completely correct RF but it is bad practice and as most showers are rated IPX4 it would seem that some accessories would have a higher rating and be subject to less water spray. I would also note that shower units should not have their casing altered to accept a cable entry which could compromise the warranty or IP rating as designated by the manufacturer. So in the eventuality of a shock they could claim not guilty. If at all possible I would always route the cable through the wall directly into the unit ensuring the seal works as intended.
Regarding putting comments on an EICR with things that do comply but could be improved. I would as far as possible put a comment in the summary or as an observation for advisory as improvement with no coding. At least it would cover me.
I will take a few more pics of before and after (if I remember) to show the situation more clearly. Thanks for your input.
I used to do a lot of PIRs and have on the odd occasion been pulled up on them and asked to justify my findings. I saw many things I didn't like and could have definately been done better, but the purpose of an EICR is to ascertain whether the installation complies with the current edition of BS7671.
I now quote the regulation number which is not complied with after every observation.
As for your installation, many showers allow top entry of both pipes and cables. Unless you can find a specific manufacturers instruction stating that this is not acceptable, then whilst not ideal, your installation is still compliant with BS7671.
I now quote the regulation number which is not complied with after every observation.
As for your installation, many showers allow top entry of both pipes and cables. Unless you can find a specific manufacturers instruction stating that this is not acceptable, then whilst not ideal, your installation is still compliant with BS7671.
Sponsored Links
134.1.1
Although that's true, as BAS has implied with his brief post, there are some regs which are very vague (134.1.1 probably being the most extreme example), hence allowing an electrician who is sufficiently confident that (s)he can justify his/her expert judgement/opinion to cite a regulation non-compliance for anything which, in their expert opinion, is 'unsatisfactory', even though there is no non-compliance with any 'explicit' regulation.
Kind Regards, John
I love 134.1.1.
It means that I can brand anything I consider shoddy to be a contravention of BS 7671.
It means that I can brand anything I consider shoddy to be a contravention of BS 7671.
Provided, that is, that you are confident that you could justify your belief that not only was it 'shoddy' but also 'shoddy enough' to constitute non-compliance with the reg!
Kind Regards, John
If I consider it shoddy then my opinion, having exercised reasonable skill and care etc, is that it does not count as good workmanship.
QED.
QED.
The 'QED' only really relates to that being your opinion. Others may not share you opinion (particularly if, for example, your opinion in question was that a lighting installation did not constitute 'good workmanship' because it consisted of downlighters
).!Kind Regards, John
134.1.1 is necessarily entirely down to the opinion of the person doing the inspection.
Hmmm - even if it were challenged? If you commissioned an EICR which resulted in a finding of non-compliance with 134.1.1 which, in your opinion, was unjustified, I reckon you'd probably be shouting about the 'lies and fraud' (or somesuch) that had been commited by the 'incompetent' person who had signed the declaration on the report!
Kind Regards, John
Frankly, I don't even think it's really much use in theoretical discussions on Internet forums, for the same reason - it doesn't stop the discussion being one about differences of opinion! However, I think you may underestimate how much 'weight' any 'finding of alleged non-compliance' on an EICR might carry in the minds of some paying customers. Given that it is so vague and subjective, I would hope that non-compliance with 134.1.1 is rarely cited on an EICR, but if people like BAS were doing them, who knows.
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
