Dodgy wiring? Got a rather nasty shock tonight :(

[securespark]

Yikes. It may be well worth going over the whole install to see if there is anything else......

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

The 32A one.

 

[plugwash]

Perhaps I have missed this flicking through, but the EICR states there is only one point on the immersion circuit.
Surely this is wrong and puts into question the rest of the report?

Indeed, it is clear that the person filling out the report did not realise that the sockets were on the immersion circuit.

Is testing every point to determine what is actually on each circuit a normal part of an EICR or is it normal to assume as this guy clearly did that the existing labelling is correct?

 

[JohnW2]

Is testing every point to determine what is actually on each circuit a normal part of an EICR or is it normal to assume as this guy clearly did that the existing labelling is correct?

I have to leave those who do EICRs to answer that question but, as a general observation, 'assuming' anything is always ill-advised, and I would of thought that assuming that CU labelling (quite commonly wrong!) is correct would be particularly ill-advised!

Kind Regards, John

 

[garmcqui]

Bit of cable tracing is going to be required- power off, lid off consumer unit, identify actual T & E pairs, determine by low voltage metering which bit of T & E goes where (easiest to ID initially will probably be the immersion heater pair)

EDIT Good odds there's a socket (maybe in the loft) hung on the old immersion heater circuit

What makes you say that mate? (About the socket in the loft) and why would that mean the circuits are joined somehow?

Ta

 

[Adam_151]

I have to leave those who do EICRs to answer that question but, as a general observation, 'assuming' anything is always ill-advised, and I would of thought that assuming that CU labelling (quite commonly wrong!) is correct would be particularly ill-advised!

You generally get a 'feel' for the installation and how well its been marked up, how its been wired etc, I'd say its normal most of the time to check one socket per room when identifying circuits to assertain 'Yup, thats all of upstairs, and none of downstairs' one might then assume the other ring final is all of the downstairs. Sometimes you realise thats out the window and you have to identfy the circuit for each point in turn. Commercial installations with the circut reference stuck on the sockets are generally assumed to be as they say they are, unless it looks like it may have been mixed up since install.

 

[EFLImpudence]

and I would of thought that...

The evolution is working.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

What makes you say that mate? (About the socket in the loft) and why would that mean the circuits are joined somehow?

Ta

The socket in the loft off the old immersion heater feed is a guess- when the hot water cylinder was binned off someone probably thought 'there's a handy 16A supply there all run in- I need power in the loft for the Sky box/train set/hydroponic setup, that'll save me spurring off a socket & having to do a load of chasing'. I did similar when I put a combi in the old house- put a socket on the landing (on the outside wall of the airing cupboard)- made hoovering a lot easier. EICR picked up that it wasn't on an RCD (bad lad) so rectified that).

The other problem (sockets and immersion heater point energised by either of 2 MCBs)- most likely scenario is 1 leg of the upstairs RFC and the immersion heater live are on the 32A breaker, the other leg of the RFC is on the 16A Immersion breaker. Power down the whole board (ideally at the meter if you've got one of those nice isolators fitted by your energy supplier), sort out which pairs are which, determine which T & E goes to the immersion heater, confirm that the other 2 T & Es belong to the upstairs RFC, reterminate (including putting neutrals and earths in the correct terminals), job jobbed

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just to me a 3kw oven on the same ring as a washing machine, tumble dryer, dishwasher and kettle seems a little excessive?

 

[JohnW2]

The evolution is working.

Nope, not evolution this time, just semi-phonetic typing fingers. I would never say that, and I doubt you would very often see even my imperfect fingers typing it!

... and, in any event, I don't think that, even for those (many) who use that form of words all the time, that really counts as evolution - it's really just 'sloppiness', based on (like my disobedient fingers above!) an attempt at phoentic writing of " would've.

However, as above, I almost certainly do use " would've " when speaking, and I couldn't really criticise someone too much for transcribing that as "would of"! "

Kind Regards, John

 

[garmcqui]

Ok, so did some digging. Powered off at the meter board, took the cover off the CU and tested the continuity of wires I marked as 1, 2 and 3 (see photo).



Turns out wires 1 and 2 had continuity, but 1 and 3 did not, neither did 2 and 3. So, as was suggested above, it seems that one side of the ring final was in the immersion mcb, whilst the immersion itself was connected to the upstairs sockets mcb.

Worrying thing is - has it been like this since 2000 when the house was built? Wiring didn’t seem to suggest there had been any recent changes:



So swapped wires 1 and 3 over, and no everything seems to work as it should (fingers crossed anyway).

Now, just need to work out why there’s two cables coming to the feed side of the immersion switch. Must check the loft.

Thanks all!

 

[garmcqui]

View attachment 153550

Thanks BAS - throw an oven in the mix there and you could be well over 32A, yes?

 

[AndyPRK]

An oven will be a bit like the yellow one.
Will draw power to start with to warm up, put food in, then the thermostat will kick the element off. Then after a few mins the element will cycle on and off etc.
The diagrams show the circuit will be at full capacity if you start all appliances off at the same time. (unlikely).
I don't think anyone here believes, there will be a problem.
But if you like a bit of DIY, you can trace that cooker circuit. And if its not used, fit a single 13 socket onto it.

You can then plug the oven into it, or the tymble dryer if its close


EDIT: Looking at the pics the cooker MCB don't even have a wire connected to it, so you may struggle with that

Can you see a spare wire in there?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, as above, I almost certainly do use " would've " when speaking, and I couldn't really criticise someone too much for transcribing that as "would of"! "

OK - fine.

Let's allow it it be written as "wood off" then, shall we?


https://www.shotdeadinthehead.com/collections/funny-mugs/products/clean-grammar-mug

 

[JohnW2]

'Wood' is phonetically identical; to 'would', but 'off' is a little removed from the pronunciation of the last syllable of " would've ". In fact, the closest phonetic spelling would presumably be 'would ov' or 'would uv'. However, I'm not suggesting that any of them should be "allowed", since we don't do phonetic spelling. In any event, my English teacher would undoubtedly have thrown something (probably a 'board duster') at me if I had uttered " would've ", no matter how I intended to spell it! My point was that, although I may be proved to be wrong, I doubt whether "would have" will ever evolve into an accepted "would of".