Nice one Malcolm, we're getting closer...
The Regs as we know are not a statutory document and though it can be used in a court of law to confirm guilt or innocence it is still open to interpretation.
Dunno so much about that, the wording of 314 is pretty unequivocal. Can't see much 'wiggle room' there.
I have been asked about 6 times in both a domestic and industrial situation to look at a situation where the loss of a supply and also a shock incident occured if blame could be apportioned to the installer. Everyone of these incidents resulted in a non prosecution as it would have be tremdously difficult to apportion blame.
Difficult to comment without knowing the circumstances but point taken.
...But can you say that in regulation 314.2 that the consequences would be dire, inconvinient yes, but not dire.
There is no qualitative guidance given in 314.2 advising on degrees of 'direness' but I suppose if you're 80yrs old, frail, living alone and cut off by snow then I'd say yes the consequences could and would be extremely dire. If you examine the wording as I'm sure you have, it states;
"Seperate circuits SHALL be provided for parts of the installation which need to be seperately controlled..." - In my opininon a dwelling's whole heating and hot water system amply deserves its status as a principal circuit and therefore requires seperate control.
"...in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits..." - which it undoubtedly will be in its current state therefore it fails here.
"...and due account SHALL be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device." - Which is what they've failed to do here. Just can't see how they could possibly wangle a compliance out of that lot unless they're demoting the status of a whole heating/HW system to the equivalence of a bell Xformer?
Could we say that a cooker/ hob that was electrical should not be on an RCD where a socket can trip them, as the very loss of cooking can also be life threatening.
No of course we couldn't because the risk of shock from having a big lump of electrified metal in your kitchen is more immediately life threatening than a simple malfunction or overload and so that is the risk that must be given precedence.
You can have a microwave. oven to get by on, the same as you could have a couple of fan heaters to get by on, before someone can come out and rectify the problem.
All of which assume prior ownership. Not an assumption I think is valid, crikey I don't think we've even got one in the house/loft/garage now I think about it!
As for the other sections of the regulations 314, again how far would you reasonably go to minimise inconvenience,...
Coupla metres of cable and a length of MT4? Spare breaker in the board just waiting to receive it? Doesn't seem too onerous to me and well within the scope of work that's reasonably expected of someone who professeses to be an installer of central heating systems.
it would be far better to have an installation with perhaps 10-12 mini DNO heads...
It's called a consumer unit isn't it?
Yes there is a logical reason to have a boiler on it's own circuit,
several very good ones in fact
...but often many considerations have to be taken into account,
the idleness and convenience of the sub-contractor isn't one of them though is it?
There are no regluations insisting on this and so it is not therefore compulsory to do so.
Even though that's exactly what the wording and intention of sec. 314 requires?
Thre bottom line to this is if the boiler did trip due to a fault on the ring final,
No "if" about it is there? if the ring goes down so does the heating and H/W.
...could you envisage winning a compensation claim by citing regulations 314 .............I doubt that very much.
Well that's a different bucket of whelks altogether, can open, worms all over the gaff!
