Could This Be A Fused Neutral?

[SparkyMcsparkface]

Hi, came across this today, double width cutout, never seen it before. Not sure if it could be fused on the neutral or whether I am worrying with no need. Any advice appreciated. (Haven't pulled the cutout obviously, even though it isn't sealed - I have a feeling it might be too stiff to pull out anyway, maybe....)

 

[jackhammerJIM]

I doubt it will be a fused neutral . never seen one in a dno cutout . Its a larger cutout to accommodate the 2 cables , 2nd cable feeding adjacent property .

 

[SparkyMcsparkface]

Thanks. I had considered the possibility that it was just about accommodating the outgoing supply but want to be sure. Anyone else concur (or differ?)

 

[7029 dave]

No that will be L AND N in there, I have seen this type of cut out and the N is a dummy, just blank, 60 amp baby too.

 

[Octopus]

Did you see this on an EICR today or yesterday by any chance?

YOU DID! I've just seen this picture on another forum!

 

[SparkyMcsparkface]

Must be the client I guess

 

[Octopus]

In the Cambridge area?

 

[Octopus]

He'll be on the phone any second asking you to resubmit the EICR as satisfactory - the service head is outside the remit of BS7671 and not something you can "improve"

 

[SparkyMcsparkface]

Might be What other forum?

 

[Octopus]

He's been advised to call you to resubmit the EICR as satisfactory........

 

[7029 dave]

Your EICR stops at the out going tails from the CU, all DNO equipment, plus metering, has nothing to do with the installation.

 

[SparkyMcsparkface]

Agreed that it falls outside the fixed wiring installation that I am testing, but the Schedule Of Inspections requires me to record an outcome of inspection on the condition of the service head.

 

[7029 dave]

Agreed that it falls outside the fixed wiring installation that I am testing, but the Schedule Of Inspections requires me to record an outcome of inspection on the condition of the service head.

Understand, but that is only a visual check, because thats all you can do.

 

[snowhead]

but the Schedule Of Inspections requires me to record an outcome of inspection on the condition of the service head.

It's plastic and apparently in good condition with wires in and out.

 

[SparkyMcsparkface]

....and with a form factor I've not seen before that I am concerned from might contain a fused neutral. I suppose the question is whether it's an "apparent deficiency" or not (ref the notes on the condition report for the person producing it).

Dave, agree it can only be a visual check....but let's say that visual check showed a cracked fuseholder and exposed live parts, we wouldn't hesitate to code that C1, right? So it's reasonable to code the supply head based on the visual check?

 

[SparkyMcsparkface]

(What I'd really mostly like by the way is input from the experience of others about whether there is any real probability of this being a fused neutral, that may be the quickest way to put this to bed, cheers.)

 

[7029 dave]

....and with a form factor I've not seen before that I am concerned from might contain a fused neutral. I suppose the question is whether it's an "apparent deficiency" or not (ref the notes on the condition report for the person producing it).

Dave, agree it can only be a visual check....but let's say that visual check showed a cracked fuseholder and exposed live parts, we wouldn't hesitate to code that C1, right? So it's reasonable to code the supply head based on the visual check?

No, if you found that situation, a call to the DNO would be the way forward, it would be an cat A exposed live parts, they would be out in 3hrs. So how could you give THE installation unsatisfactory.? As I said it is not part of your remit.

 

[Octopus]

I think all my reports from now on will state outgoing meter tails is the start of the installation to avoid such fiascos

Your client could lose their sale because of the iet inability to write the regs properly which is unacceptable imho

 

[SparkyMcsparkface]

Dave, again I come back to the point that box 1.2 "Condition of service head" is there to be filled in with one of the designated outcomes.

 

[Octopus]

The condition of the service head, looking at your photo, looks ok to me.... It's not damaged.

 

[7029 dave]

Dave, again I come back to the point that box 1.2 "Condition of service head" is there to be filled in with one of the designated outcomes.

Okay, so fill in the box, with your finding on the DNO equipment, code it, C1 fair enough, but by the time you filled out the report and sent it to your client , it would have been rectified .They have to respond within 3hrs. Still unsatisfactory.? I am afraid will have to agree to disagree.

 

[SparkyMcsparkface]

We can't take condition to mean the overall state of the thing, so to speak?

 

[SparkyMcsparkface]

I don't want to agree to disagree, I want to discuss this to a conclusion based on reasoned argument and evidence, I would be delighted to be able to agree with you and be able to say why.

So if I could fill it out as a C1 for a C1, then why not fill it out as an FI for an FI?

 

[Octopus]

Why not. We look at accessories such as sockets and switches.

 

[Deleted member 70522]

I've come across a few of these, and the neutral is most likely to be a solid link - I've only ever found a single fuse in them. I suspect they were manufactured when DC supplies were still around but getting less common, so that electricity undertakings could buy in bulk and then add in a second fuselink if being used on a supply that was still DC. They never seem to be sealed!

 

[davesparks]

There is something in the refs which addresses the subject of section 1 of the inspections. I think it explains that problems found with DNO equipment need to be raised with the DNO but don't necessarily need to affect the outcome of the report.
I can't look it up now as I'm in the Hardressers having my hair done!

As far as your concerns about the cutout go, that may have had a fuse in the neutral when first fitted but that should have been replaced with a solid link. What you should do if you have a concern is contact the DNO and get them to take it from there.
I would be far more interested in what looks to be bs951 clamps on the pilc, but again that's for the DNO to fix.

 

[westward10]

I would comment on the adjustable earth clamps on the supply cables.
Beat me to it Dave.

 

[HandySparks]

... I'm in the Hardressers ...

... which is where the hard men go to get their hair cut.

 

[davesparks]

... which is where the hard men go to get their hair cut.

I wouldn't know about that, i don't have it cut.....

...I was only having my roots dyed

 

[westward10]

What colour.

 

[davesparks]

What colour.

Black and blue

 

[westward10]

Painful then was it.

 

[davesparks]

Painful then was it.

It was terribly painful having two ladies giving me their undivided attention and all the tea I could drink

 

[davesparks]

And this was the result

 

[NDG Elecs]

Agreed that it falls outside the fixed wiring installation that I am testing, but the Schedule Of Inspections requires me to record an outcome of inspection on the condition of the service head.

I have argued about this before on this forum. I usually put N/V for those items. Out of my jurisdiction and not my responsibility to record in my view. I will contact DNO if any issues found no problem. Some of the other posts on this thread make interesting points I think.

Edit: not your typical blue rinse then Dave!

 

[Jamchiv01]

If we find an issue with the Service head or meter, we give it the correct Outcome C1/2/3 depending on severity.

Before we fully issue the report we alert the customer and tell them we can either submit the report with the c1/2/3 on it or you can contact the DNO, have them rectify the issue and call us back to verify it's been rectified and we will issue the report with it as a tick.

 

[davesparks]

If we find an issue with the Service head or meter, we give it the correct Outcome C1/2/3 depending on severity.

Before we fully issue the certificate we alert the customer and tell them we can either submit the cert with the c1/2/3 on it or you can contact the DNO, have them rectify the issue and call us back to verify it's been rectified and we will issue the cert with it as a tick.

its a report, not a certificate. Although it sounds like a petty thing it makes a huge difference

 

[Jamchiv01]

its a report, not a certificate. Although it sounds like a petty thing it makes a huge difference

That's what I meant sorry, I edited the post

 

[westward10]

I have argued about this before on this forum. I usually put N/V for those items. Out of my jurisdiction and not my responsibility to record in my view. I will contact DNO if any issues found no problem. Some of the other posts on this thread make interesting points I think.

Edit: not your typical blue rinse then Dave!

It is a requirement of an EICR to comment on it, if you feel it is outside the remit, which it is not then you should discuss it with the client that you will record it as a Limitation although why you would do this is not clear.

 

[NDG Elecs]

It is a requirement of an EICR to comment on it, if you feel it is outside the remit, which it is not then you should discuss it with the client that you will record it as a Limitation although why you would do this is not clear.

My view is that the bods at the IET have spoke with various DNO reps and have subsequently passed these inspection items on to the humble spark. If I am not deemed competent to pull a main fuse how am I competent to comment accurately on the DNOs equipment. If there is an issue I will always contact the DNO without a problem. But the installation I inspect and record details about starts at the outgoing tails of the meter.

 

[westward10]

It is asking you to view on its condition not to pull any fuse carrier.

 

[NDG Elecs]

You are missing my point Westward. DNOs equipment is outside of the remit of 7671. As I see it the DNOs are trying to basically come to a point in time when every one has smart meters and home visits are no longer necessary whereby defects may have been picked up on previously. Hence the inclusion of these items in the schedule. I will 'lim' it in future just for you! After lengthy discussions with the client....... obviously....

 

[westward10]

Don't know what the issue is I really don't .

 

[davesparks]

You are missing my point Westward. DNOs equipment is outside of the remit of 7671. As I see it the DNOs are trying to basically come to a point in time when every one has smart meters and home visits are no longer necessary whereby defects may have been picked up on previously. Hence the inclusion of these items in the schedule. I will 'lim' it in future just for you! After lengthy discussions with the client....... obviously....

Interestingly the DNO's equipment installed within a customers proerty is not entirely outside the remit of 7671, however it is something that we e are not allowed to interfere with.
However we can look at it, and that is all that is required to inspect it.

 

[NDG Elecs]

Don't know what the issue is I really don't .

Haha! Last time I had this debate on here I got exactly the same response from some others.
As I say I will be the first to ring the DNO if any problems are found. However, I am not putting my name and signature to a document that includes things which I am not deemed to be competent to assess. That's my take on it..!

 

[NDG Elecs]

Interestingly the DNO's equipment installed within a customers proerty is not entirely outside the remit of 7671, however it is something that we e are not allowed to interfere with.
However we can look at it, and that is all that is required to inspect it.

Not according to the EICR schedules no!!
Seriously though, in what respects are DNO equipment within 7671 DS? I am not the most avid reader of the yellow book TBH! I tend to know what I need to know for the work I carry out.

 

[davesparks]

Not according to the EICR schedules no!!
Seriously though, in what respects are DNO equipment within 7671 DS? I am not the most avid reader of the yellow book TBH! I tend to know what I need to know for the work I carry out.

I can't really comment on the actual regs too much until I can bothered to get my copy out of the van.

In the respect that the ukpn network design guide states that any equipment installed on a consumer's premises needs to comply with 7671. It goes on to specify that the size of the supply cable and the earth fault loop impedance need to be such that the fuse in the cutout will disconnect within 5 seconds. Outside of the consumer's premises the disconnection time is a lot longer.
This is one of the reasons they don't like installing anything within the consumer's premises these days.
If I can dig out the relevant document from my steam-powered junk heap of a computer then I'll post it up, but don't hold your breath for that.

 

[NDG Elecs]

I will look into that. My thinking at present is that that is possibly their (ukpn) take on it. I have my brown, red and green copies upstairs but missus is asleep and not likely to take kindly to me waking her up looking up regs! Yellow copy in van also, and it's cold and rainy so not getting that tonight!

 

[7029 dave]

You are missing my point Westward. DNOs equipment is outside of the remit of 7671. As I see it the DNOs are trying to basically come to a point in time when every one has smart meters and home visits are no longer necessary whereby defects may have been picked up on previously. Hence the inclusion of these items in the schedule. I will 'lim' it in future just for you! After lengthy discussions with the client....... obviously....

When smart meters are fully installed, they will still have a safety inspection every 2 years just like any other meter, DNO equipment gets inspected too.

 

[NDG Elecs]

When smart meters are fully installed, they will still have a safety inspection every 2 years just like any other meter, DNO equipment gets inspected too.

That's interesting to know Dave. Is that an across the UK thing or just SSE? Also are meters currently meant to be checked every two years? The reason I ask the last bit is I see a lot of meters with poorly installed tails with exposed inner insulation and sometimes slightly exposed conductors at the terminals. I know the logistics of planning to update where necessary must be a nightmare at times, and cannot see how each and every install would actually be checked every two years. Is it not also dependant on whether the meter reader is diligent enough to report all they see that should be updated? I suspect many can't be bothered too!

Edit: I just noticed that you used the word "still" above.