Domestic. Has anyone seen this before?

A

amckay

a55e4e4a23d0ee0fa88883a3b9b736cb.jpg


The shower being fed from the dp switch?

Its the first time I have come across this and not sure what to make of it. Have any of you lot seen this before?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Looks like they have taken a feed from the main switch to feed the shower switch.
Shame that the feed is not taken from the load side.
Is there an isolator between the Meter and the CU?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
then it's a C2 in my book. no single point of isolation. if the shower sub-board was taken from the load side, you might just get away with it, as the 6mm? is unlikely to be overloaded. bad practice, though. if my eyes don't lie, though, there's a spare way in the main DB. why was that MCB not rated for the shower and used?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It would have been better in an Henly block, with proper sized tails, but being as the shower is a fixed load, it shouldnt need overload protection. The supply to it is quite short, so low chance of a fault there.
Not a good install, certainly worthy of a C3. Dangerous/potentially dangerous, not really.
No RCD protection would mean I'd change it - or recommend it to be changed, but Regs wise, I cant really think of a C2 to 'fail' it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Basically they've used the Main Switch in the CU as a Henly block.
By rights there should be a single point of isolation for the installation.
One option would be to remove the conductors, and place them in the bottom of the switch.
Another would be to install a switch between the meter and the CU.
It may be possible to rearrange things so that the shower switch is fed direct from the new main switch, or perhaps a Henly block could be installed?

Sorry, but definitely a code C2 for me.
Switch off the main switch, and the shower is still live.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
i'd C2 it as a potential danger. reason being that someone could switch off the main switch in the CU to work on the shower, which would still be energised, so a potential danger.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well there's a spare MCB in CU which could be took out and replaced with a higher rated rcbo.
The fuse in sub board I believe is 30A.
The shower hasn't worked since Tennant moved in.
I've not been given the work as she got a "cheaper quote"

I'd prob code it a c2
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
so she'll get some muppet to bodge it. fire or death will see a glut of tv programmes telling joe public that all electricians are incompetent robbing barstewards and we''ll have another part pee fiasco.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are thousands of installs like this with no single point of isolation,usually a number of isolators from a henly block. All it needs is a label stating that all isolators need to be off in order to isolate the entire installation. It's a code 3 for me,I cant see a potential danger unless standard safe isolation proceedures are not followed,which is not something which can be reasonably allowed for.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
wirepuller said:
There are thousands of installs like this with no single point of isolation,usually a number of isolators from a henly block. All it needs is a label stating that all isolators need to be off in order to isolate the entire installation. It's a code 3 for me,I cant see a potential danger unless standard safe isolation proceedures are not followed,which is not something which can be reasonably allowed for.
Click to expand...


Yes agree code 3 for no single point of isolation but code 2 for no RCD on shower thinks
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Prior to 2005 there was no requirement for showers....or any other bathroom circuits to be on an RCD as long as disconnection times were met by the OCPD
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To be pedantic, there is no requirement to 'RCD protect' a shower.

It is the circuit which would nowadays require the RCD protection as, indeed, would any other circuits in a bathroom.

This may have the same outcome but would anyone similarly code the light fitting?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Simonslimline said:
Why? Code 3 surely.
Click to expand...

I used to go with the code 3 observation for no RCD for a showers but was pulled up by my scam that it should be a code 2 . If there was supplementary bonding I would Code 3 it though , and as stated its the circuits not the appliance that as to be protected any way , I think its a tuff one to call and would no argue with the code 3 if on a report done by others,but would go for a code 2 in most situations if I was doing the test unless you can convince me otherwise.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Flanders said:
I used to go with the code 3 observation for no RCD for a showers but was pulled up by my scam that it should be a code 2 . If there was supplementary bonding I would Code 3 it though , and as stated its the circuits not the appliance that as to be protected any way , I think its a tuff one to call and would no argue with the code 3 if on a report done by others,but would go for a code 2 in most situations if I was doing the test unless you can convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Surely if it complies with the regulations it was installed to then it can't warrant a C2 and be potentially dangerous!

What reason did you're scam give for it being a C2 out of interest?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
They said that if there was earth leakage and no supplementary bonding and you are soaking wet in the shower then the risk of electric shock is higher and use of an RCD would give you the additional protection.
I feel that just because it a new regulation and was not in the 16th it not necessary just a deviation from the regulations and code 3 it ,it down to each installation for example maybe a care home full of venerable people or a rented accommodation where the tenant will use any excuse to say the electrics are unsafe An RCD would be a good idea, were do we draw the line as regs get updated, I know we test the installation to the regs at the time it was installed but surely the regs are updated to improve the safety of the installation and just giving all new reg deviations a code 3 does not seem right.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Flanders said:
They said that if there was earth leakage and no supplementary bonding and you are soaking wet in the shower then the risk of electric shock is higher and use of an RCD would give you the additional protection.
Click to expand...
Well, yes but that's a different matter, isn't it?
Without RCD protection at the time there should have been supplementary bonding so a code 2 would be for the lack of bonding, not lack of RCD.

I feel that just because it a new regulation and was not in the 16th it not necessary just a deviation from the regulations and code 3 it ,it down to each installation for example maybe a care home full of venerable people or a rented accommodation where the tenant will use any excuse to say the electrics are unsafe An RCD would be a good idea, were do we draw the line as regs get updated,
Click to expand...
The regs. are rarely retrospective so 'improvement recommended'.

I know we test the installation to the regs at the time
Click to expand...
We test to the current regs. and bear in mind the regs at the time of installation.
If it was considered 'safe' at the time it cannot be potentially dangerous now - so improvement recommended.

it was installed but surely the regs are updated to improve the safety of the installation and just giving all new reg deviations a code 3 does not seem right.
Click to expand...
Even safer now does not mean it was dangerous.

An old car without seat belts is less safe but is it potentially dangerous?
The car itself will be less safe but is it potentially dangerous?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Geoffsd said:
Well, yes but that's a different matter, isn't it?
Without RCD protection at the time there should have been supplementary bonding so a code 2 would be for the lack of bonding, not lack of RCD.


The regs. are rarely retrospective so 'improvement recommended'.


We test to the current regs. and bear in mind the regs at the time of installation.
If it was considered 'safe' at the time it cannot be potentially dangerous now - so improvement recommended.


Even safer now does not mean it was dangerous.

An old car without seat belts is less safe but is it potentially dangerous?
The car itself will be less safe but is it potentially dangerous?
Click to expand...
A profound statement
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
All of which proves if you get two reports on the same installation by two different electricians one might be a satisfactory.....and one an unsatisfactory.
Dont inspire confidence does it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Similar threads

C
Commercial to domestic (embarrassing question)
Replies
3
Views
231
littlespark
littlespark
Moley
  • Question Question
Right lads, what do I need?????
Replies
17
Views
682
Moley
Moley

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Green 2 Go Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses Heating 2 Go
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Advert

YOUR Unread Posts

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Receive a daily, weekly, or monthly email containing a digest of new and recently updated threads.

Thread Information

Title
Domestic. Has anyone seen this before?
Prefix
N/A
Forum
Domestic Electrician Forum
Start date
Last reply date
Replies
46
Unsolved
--

Thread Tags

Tags Tags
anyone before domestic isolator switch tapatalk upload

Advert

Thread statistics

Created
amckay,
Last reply from
Flanders,
Replies
46
Views
4,921

Advert

TrueNAS JBOD Storage Server

Tilers | UK Tiling Forum | Tilers Forums | Find a Tiler
UK Tiling Forum by Tilers Forums UK
Plumbers Forums | Plumbing Advice | Gas Forum
Outside Play
Back
Top