Is An Isolator In A Shower/bath Area Acceptable

[ban-all-sheds]

However, nor does the fact that an installation is cr4p mean that it is necessarily non-compliant with the Wiring Regulations.

Yes it does - read 134.1.1.

A builder can (and some do!) produce a building which looks awul and has a very poor standard of finish, but that does not necessarily mean that there is any non-compliance with any Building Regulations.

Materials and workmanship

7. Building work shall be carried out—

(a)with adequate and proper materials which—

(i)are appropriate for the circumstances in which they are used,

(ii)are adequately mixed or prepared, and

(iii)are applied, used or fixed so as adequately to perform the functions for which they are designed; and

(b)in a workmanlike manner.

So not as clear-cut, "workmanlike" rather than "good workmanship", but there is scope to declare that a shoddy job does not comply.

However, if an electrician truly believed (and was prepared to justify) that this was a significant hazard, (s)he could cite a specific regulation which they believed had been violated (e.g. 522.3.1), without having to rely on the vagueness of 134.1.1 ('not good workmanship').

That's a separate issue. No other regulations need to be violated for him to be of the opinion that it is not good workmanship.

If in his expert, professional opinion the workmanship was not good then he could cite 134.1.1.

Whether he should, or not, is a matter for his conscience, and for his standards which he applies to his work, i.e. the inspection of the installation.

It seems I need, once more, to remind everybody how this got started.

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.

I pointed out that there is a regulation which RF can quote for poor quality work.


In the case of this shower, if somebody was doing an inspection, then unless they would genuinely describe it as GOOD WORKMANSHIP they have a non-compliance on their hands. That immediately becomes their professional opinion, and they would do well to remember that they have been employed because of their professional expertise, and are obliged to provide their services to the best of their ability.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fortunately, there is, in practice, no real need for a change (even though it would be better if it were changed to reflect reality) - since, AFAICS, virtually everyone is being sensible in interpreting that regulation. I think you are probably in a tiny minority (maybe of one) in believing that purely aesthetic issues should be considered as non-compliance with 'the Wiring Regulations'.

It says "good workmanship".

Unless you would genuinely describe the work as such then you cannot deny that it does not comply.

 

[rjm2k]

But how can a 240v switch/isolator that isn't waterproof or water resistant and can be easily sprayed with the shower head be permissible or safe?

Surely the justification for writing it up as unacceptable is that you could stand there and spray it with water?

W.

But isn't that the same for ANY accessory/appliance directly above or even near a shower head but outside of zones 0, 1 or 2? You could deliberately stand and spray many things with a shower.

 

[JohnW2]

... AFAICS, virtually everyone is being sensible in interpreting that regulation. I think you are probably in a tiny minority (maybe of one) in believing that purely aesthetic issues should be considered as non-compliance with 'the Wiring Regulations'.

It says "good workmanship". Unless you would genuinely describe the work as such then you cannot deny that it does not comply.

You're just being silly, albeit aided and abetted by a regulation which was written so vaguely as to be "asking for it". Who do you think it is that shares your view that purely aesthetic issues should be regarded as failures to comply with the Wiring Regs?

Have you nothing better to do today?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

But isn't that the same for ANY accessory/appliance directly above or even near a shower head but outside of zones 0, 1 or 2? You could deliberately stand and spray many things with a shower.

Quite. And if you really wanted to, and had one of those 'wiggly' things on your kitchen tap, you could deliberately spray water into your toaster if you really wanted to. For better or for worse, the regs have defined the zones (and 'outside the zones') in a bathroom - so an electrician who wanted to fault the shower switch as being non-compliant with 522.3.1, despite being outside of the defined zones, would have to be able to justify why (s)he was taking a different view from the IET/BSI.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

There's probably a case to say that a switch which has a component part hanging down in the shower cubicle is actually within the zones.

 

[JohnW2]

There's probably a case to say that a switch which has a component part hanging down in the shower cubicle is actually within the zones.

I reckon that probably would be stretching things a bit - and it would, of course, mean that one could not have a ceiling shower switch 'above' even zone 2 - which would make many installations non-compliant.

As was discussed early in this thread, the actual risk (to humans) is incredibly small, probably a lot less than that posed by having the shower unit itself within the cubicle. A ceiling switch would have to be almost full of water before one could even start postulating a 'hazard mechanism', and the RCD would surely then operate?

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Also, if we're being picky, the manufacturers instruction on the data sheet for this switch says:

Installation

MK ceiling accessories are safe for use in all
normal lighting (sic) applications. Do not mount
them where they may be subjected to
excessive moisture or dampness.

 

[JohnW2]

Also, if we're being picky, the manufacturers instruction on the data sheet for this switch says:
Installation MK ceiling accessories are safe for use in all normal lighting (sic) applications. Do not mount them where they may be subjected to excessive moisture or dampness.

Another of those 'orribly subjective ones! What constitutes 'excessive mositure or dampness'? Compared with most other rooms in a house, anywhere in a bathroom probably qualifies as having much more 'moisture or dampness', but who is to say (and how) whether or not it is 'excessive'? The statement is presumably there to cover the manufacturer's backside, but I'm not sure it's very helpful to anyone else!

Kind Regards, John

 

[rjm2k]

Also, if we're being picky, the manufacturers instruction on the data sheet for this switch says:

Installation

MK ceiling accessories are safe for use in all
normal lighting (sic) applications. Do not mount
them where they may be subjected to
excessive moisture or dampness.

By that definition, their 50Amp switch is NOT suitable for a shower because it is not a light!

 

[JohnW2]

By that definition, their 50Amp switch is NOT suitable for a shower because it is not a light!

Indeed. One can't help but wonder whether we are being told about the correct data sheet!

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/5719.pdf

 

[JohnW2]

http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/5719.pdf

Thanks. The more I see of MK datasheets, the less impressed I become!

Kind Regards, John

 

[rjm2k]

If someone could be bothered to email them it would be interesting to find out if their 50amp switch can be used for showers despite the data sheet saying it's for lighting and what their definition of an area with excessive moisture is!

 

[JohnW2]

If someone could be bothered to email them it would be interesting to find out if their 50amp switch can be used for showers despite the data sheet saying it's for lighting and what their definition of an area with excessive moisture is!

They might just about have the sense/confidence to answer 'yes' to the first question, but I would be incredibly surprised if you would get a useful answer to the second! If it matters to you, why don't you send the e-mail? Whatever else one can say about MK, they are very good at responding (even if often not very helpfully!) to technical enquiries!

Kind Regards, John