Shocking installation

[JohnW2]

If you actually go to the guy's photobucket album, and view the full size image as uploaded (just keep clicking on pluses) you'll get the full resolution image.

That's what I thought I had done - but clearly I did something wrong!

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

You say there's nothing wrong per se in having no isolation switch in the CU. I may be wrong, but I can't recall a Hager board configuration that left the factory like this one.

So, in that respect, surely it contravenes the regs?

 

[JohnW2]

You say there's nothing wrong per se in having no isolation switch in the CU.

There isn't - although, as you go on to imply, it may not count as a ('type tested') 'CU' if it has been 'modified'.

I may be wrong, but I can't recall a Hager board configuration that left the factory like this one. So, in that respect, surely it contravenes the regs?

I don't know whether Hager ever sold any like that (I doubt it) - but does it necessarily contravene the regs to have a DB which is not a type-tested 'CU'?

It would seem a bit odd that anyone would remove the main switch from a MS plus 2RCD CU. One therefore suspects that it may have started life as a 'split load' board (MS plus 1 RCD) and that someone tried to 'bring it up to current regs' by swapping the main switch for a second RCD. If so, it would be a bit ironic that someone had attracted scorn, and maybe contravened regs, by an attempt to 'bring up to current regs'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Ahtyrrell]

You say there's nothing wrong per se in having no isolation switch in the CU.

There isn't - although, as you go on to imply, it may not count as a ('type tested') 'CU' if it has been 'modified'.

I may be wrong, but I can't recall a Hager board configuration that left the factory like this one. So, in that respect, surely it contravenes the regs?

I don't know whether Hager ever sold any like that (I doubt it) - but does it necessarily contravene the regs to have a DB which is not a type-tested 'CU'?

It would seem a bit odd that anyone would remove the main switch from a MS plus 2RCD CU. One therefore suspects that it may have started life as a 'split load' board (MS plus 1 RCD) and that someone tried to 'bring it up to current regs' by swapping the main switch for a second RCD. If so, it would be a bit ironic that someone had attracted scorn, and maybe contravened regs, by an attempt to 'bring up to current regs'!

Kind Regards, John

Surely the obvious way to bring it up to current regs would be to leave the main switch be and simply add a second RCD and configure the board correctly, I cant see a professional electrician leaving the board like this, the main point I was trying to make was that this setup screams DIY job

 

[JohnW2]

Surely the obvious way to bring it up to current regs would be to leave the main switch be and simply add a second RCD and configure the board correctly,...

That's obvioulsy true, provided there was adequate space (which it looks as if there probably was).

I cant see a professional electrician leaving the board like this, the main point I was trying to make was that this setup screams DIY job

I take your point, but something doesn't seem to add up. I would be surprised if a 'shoddy DIYer' would be engaging in 'bringing up to current regs', even if (s)he knew what the current regs were.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Has it been mentioned already?

Can anyone see for certain where the supply to the left RCD comes from?

It looks to me as if someone has just changed the MS for an RCD without reconfiguring the tails.

 

[JohnW2]

Has it been mentioned already? ... Can anyone see for certain where the supply to the left RCD comes from?

I believe that doubts/uncertainties have been voiced!

It looks to me as if someone has just changed the MS for an RCD without reconfiguring the tails.

That does look like a distinct possibility - but, as you say, it's difficult to be certain from the pic.

Kind Regards, John