borrowed neutral

[jenions]

recently changed a c/u and found a borrowed neutral on landing, i told customer however at the moment they dont want me to run a new neutral through the house. so is it acceptable to them both on the same rcbo? (rcbo as its a high integrity board) this is 1 of my nic assessments so its got to be tip top condition.

 

[telectrix]

it's acceptable up to a point. the problem is that a fault anywhere on the lights taking out the RCBO will take out all the lights in the house. look at the possibility of feeding a live from the loft to the upstairs 2 way switch, obviously disconnecting the live link in the downstairs 2 way switch.

 

[oxocube]

The correct solution is to install a new neutral to the the correct lighting circuit.

The other incorrect option is to combine the circuits on one breaker. Problem being, breaker trips and no lighting any where in house.

Also professional sparks carry out a test and inspection before doing the cu change.​

 

[PC Electrics]

That won't work, Tel, as you are now short of a core between the two switches.

Jenions, it is a perfectly acceptable repair in the circumstances to put the lights on one MCB way (or RCBO). Sure it's not ideal as all the lights are out in the event of a fault, but it is electrically safe which a borrowed neutral is not. And anyway there are plenty of other sources of light - bedside lamps, TVs, street lights, mobile phone display and something your Granny always had by the bed...... a torch (I hear you gasp in amazement).

Oxo, you trying to stir up another nasty arguement??? You wrote the exact same reply to this question recently and I remember it getting rather 'heated'.

 

[Des 56]

The correct solution is to install a new neutral to the the correct lighting circuit.
​

Ah we are back on this one again

I kept out of the firing line on the last argument( because it had gone further than debate)

Now,I will take issue with the above quote
I think the word solutions would have been better used

He can take a feed to the down landing switch off the up lights mcb in the consumer unit, and disconnect the link feed off the 2-way in the 2-gang switch,hey presto the landing light is now on the m circuit where it would be expected to be
Not forgetting your solution as well of course

Now here is the bit you dont like

If they dont want cost or disturbance,he can put both up and down lights on one mcb
He could even fit an em light to better comply with the regs and still keep them on one breaker

Bread on the table,whilst doing the best you can.is all that can reasonably be asked of anybody​

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The correct solution is to install a new neutral to the the correct lighting circuit.

The other incorrect option is to combine the circuits on one breaker. Problem being, breaker trips and no lighting any where in house.

Also professional sparks carry out a test and inspection before doing the cu change.​

At risk of more mud slinging I am going to take issue with that.
90% of clients will want a price before ordering a CU change....So you are telling me you go to the job to price,and spend an hour or three carrying out a full test and inspection for free on a job you may not even get?....Well good luck, I dont work for free.
Most professional electricians I know will do a visual on bonding and earthing,and possibly an IR test on their initial visit,all of which takes a matter of minutes...They will include in their estimate that on completion of the cu change a full test on the installation will be carried out,and any faults found may need to be rectified at extra cost.
So many on here suggest what amounts to a full PIR must be carried out before a CU change....OK,in an ideal world,yes. But if you are pricing??....I've got better things to do than PIR's for naff all.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

That's just tough titty for the people who live there, isn't it?

If the client has had the disadvantages of a single lighting protective device pointed out to them and still decline to spend the money on a more practical solution...well yes it is tough titty.
I believe that in the posts your sarcasm is referring to there was no suggestion of not informing end users of the potential problems,but that it's their choice if they take the cheap option.

 

[nikmet]

seems like groundhog day again lol

 

[telectrix]

That won't work, Tel, as you are now short of a core between the two switches.

Jenions, it is a perfectly acceptable repair in the circumstances to put the lights on one MCB way (or RCBO). Sure it's not ideal as all the lights are out in the event of a fault, but it is electrically safe which a borrowed neutral is not. And anyway there are plenty of other sources of light - bedside lamps, TVs, street lights, mobile phone display and something your Granny always had by the bed...... a torch (I hear you gasp in amazement).

Oxo, you trying to stir up another nasty arguement??? You wrote the exact same reply to this question recently and I remember it getting rather 'heated'.

sorry, my blonde moment of the week. would have to feed a live to the downstairs 2way switch, or a 3rd core between the 2 switches .

 

[oxocube]

Oxo, you trying to stir up another nasty arguement??? You wrote the exact same reply to this question recently and I remember it getting rather 'heated'.

Because its the correct advice and does'nt need to be changed to suit a few aggressive people on here who are incapable of accepting a different points of view.

 

[oxocube]

90% of clients will want a price before ordering a CU change....So you are telling me you go to the job to price,and spend an hour or three carrying out a full test and inspection for free on a job you may not even get?

I did'nt say you do it for free? You have to include the cost of a full test on all the circuits, all I'm saying is you do most of the testing before the cu change, so the cost and time taken is exactly the same.

 

[ezzzekiel]

The correct solution is to install a new neutral to the the correct lighting circuit.

The other incorrect option is to combine the circuits on one breaker.​

youre talking absolute dribble son - jog on

 

[JUD]

90% of clients will want a price before ordering a CU change....So you are telling me you go to the job to price,and spend an hour or three carrying out a full test and inspection for free on a job you may not even get?....Well good luck, I dont work for free.

I did'nt say you do it for free? You have to include the cost of a full test on all the circuits, all I'm saying is you do most of the testing before the cu change, so the cost and time taken is exactly the same.

Oxo, I think what wirepuller is trying to say is that you wouldn't want to spend the time testing all the circuits before you've even got the job i.e. whilst pricing the job.

If you were to do this and then the customer decided not to give you the job, you have effectively spent a couple of hours working for nothing.

 

[oxocube]

youre talking absolute dribble son - jog on

The first insult has arrived.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I did'nt say you do it for free? You have to include the cost of a full test on all the circuits, all I'm saying is you do most of the testing before the cu change, so the cost and time taken is exactly the same.

Understood...although I cant see what difference it makes before or after....unless you identify faults before undertaking the CU change,and then inform the client,who may then say "well actually if it's going to cost a load more I wont have the CU change after all"!

This is my problem with the PIR before a CU change brigade....if you do it before a price the client may decline the work if it involves remedials as well,in which case you've done it for nothing.Or if you do it after a price but before the CU change,they may change their mind and decline the CU change.
My preferred option is testing after the cu change with the written understanding that any faults which have to be rectified will be at extra cost.
I would accept though that there are no perfect options both for sparks and client when a simple CU change is complicated by faults.