Has he done it right??? :)

[ChrisR]

Existing system:
Wylex rewireable CU with an RCD before it, supplying the rings, etc.
+
Separate 2 way rewireable feeding the lights - ie no rcd.

Sparky has put new lights (previous light had been removed)
in bathroom, also supply to wall cupboard with a light.

So no rcd as he used the existing supply.

After being queried about lack of RCD, he's connected the above bathroom stuff to an, existing 5A spur off the main CU, and the upstairs lights circuit as well. Spur was also used for bathroom UFH wire.

Customer finds freezer heating etc all off, because he leaves the landing light on when he's out, and the bulb had "gone", taking the trip out, turning all the house off apart from the downstairs lights.


I thought you couldn't share trips between ring and lighting circuits like that.?????????
Original quote was to include new rcd, but that's beside the point. Is what's been done, against the regs, or against Best Practice...?
No bonding other than at mains water and gas, btw.

 

[electronicsuk]

It does sound like a complete botch. Obviously he was wrong to have installed new circuits in the bathroom that were not RCD protected. Although that has been corrected, I'm not sure I like the idea of UFH running off what is effectively a 5A lighting circuit, even if the load is suitable for the circuit it certainly isn't good practice.

It's a bit of a grey area, but I don't think the spark would be obliged to do anything about the entire installation only being protected by a single RCD. Although it is not up to current standards, it would only be necessary to change it if installing new circuits or replacing the CU. Not that I'm defending his work, mind...

 

[Taylortwocities]

He has created a single point of failure which is in contravention of Wiring Regulations.

You could say that the so called "17th Edition" Consumer Units also contravene the regs as a single fault would take out multiple circuits.

The only way to comply is to put an RCBO on each circuit, but that's way too expensive at £30 a circuit so there's a compromise - 2 RCDs split.

But what your guy has done is to comply with the RCD requirment but at the same time create a contravention

 

[Jacobssi]

What is UFH??

 

[electronicsuk]

He has created a single point of failure which is in contravention of Wiring Regulations.

I think that's a little unfair, as he didn't install the RCD, it was there already and protecting the majority of the installation. All he has done is to extend an existing circuit that was already RCD protected.

 

[electronicsuk]

What is UFH??

Under Floor Heating.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I wonder if he included 134.1.1 in the set of regulations he signed to say he'd complied with?

 

[Taylortwocities]

He has created a single point of failure which is in contravention of Wiring Regulations.

I think that's a little unfair, as he didn't install the RCD, it was there already and protecting the majority of the installation. All he has done is to extend an existing circuit that was already RCD protected.

I don't think that is unfair. He has made an alteration that has left the installation in a worse condition than it was before. As a result he has gone against the principles detailed in 314 (Division of Installation).

 

[ChrisR]

Thanks chaps - something like I was thinking, and not particularly clear-cut.

Problem now is that the landing light is tripping the RCD. Is that a feature of some low energy bulbs?
No earth in there, so how??
As it's the landing (2 way) light, I don't know where the neutral would, or should, be.
Could it be that it's wrong, and therefore unbalancing the RCD?
Or even right, and unbalancing the RCD?!!
(I didn't put it in!!)

It's gone from the upper situation to the lower:

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Borrowed neutrals on landing lights are not unknown, but that would trip the RCD the instant it was turned on...

 

[ChrisR]

That could be the case - customer unreliable!
In the days when it was installed,, probably the 70's, would it have been against the regs?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Borrowed neutrals with landing lights happen not when originally installed, but when someone later splits the upstairs and downstairs lighting into two circuits, because it was common practice to wire the 2-way switching for the landing light by a jumper between the two COMs in the hall switch, running T/E between the L1s & L2s of the hall and landing switch, switched live from the landing COM, picking up the neutral in the loop upstairs.

NP until you snip the lighting loop where it runs up inside the airing cupboard and end up with the landing light getting its live from the downstairs circuit...

 

[ChrisR]

Gotcha, thanks.
Confirmed, any bulb in the landing light trips the trip.

See what you mean about 314.

Is there anywhere though, something I can refer to which says something like ...
Thou shallt not do this:

He has made an alteration that has left the installation in a worse condition than it was before.

He clearly didn't test it. He's a NICEIC man - wouldn't they be tetchy?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Confirmed, any bulb in the landing light trips the trip.

I thought you said it tripped when the bulb failed when he'd left it on when he went away.

Surely he would have noticed the RCD tripping if it happened as soon as the landing light was turned on?

Is there anywhere though, something I can refer to which says something like ...
Thou shallt not do this:

He has made an alteration that has left the installation in a worse condition than it was before.

134.1.1

He clearly didn't test it.

How do you know? The standard tests don't include forcing a lamp to fail.

He's a NICEIC man

Complain to them.

 

[ChrisR]

I thought you said

Ah well, customer was

customer unreliable!

and it was found that

but that would trip the RCD the instant it was turned on...

which is what I meant by

Confirmed, any bulb in the landing light trips the trip.

He clearly didn't test it.

How do you know? The standard tests don't include forcing a lamp to fail.

As it isn't a bulb blowing that does it, a (good) bulb would have been just sitting there.
Would any of the standard tests pick up the cross-connection of neutrals between the lighting circuits? He obviously worked on, as in reconnected, the upstairs lighting circuit. Should he have tested the RCD he'd connected it to?


It turns out that the guy left the house with the trip tripped/OFF, when he went, so heating, freezer, etc, were off..

134.1.1

Thanks - I don't have 17th book itself but it should be in one of Scaddan's I have.