Discuss EICR - coding for a single CU in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Status
Not open for further replies.

kingeri

Electrician's Arms
Messages
2,604
Location
Yorkshire
Been doing a few bits at a house down my street. Guy had an EICR done a few months ago (not by me). He wanted the stuff picked up on this put right. Fair enough, I thought. So I had a look through the EICR. The installation is in generally good condition, but I have spotted a few things which I would have coded but haven't been (e.g. all sockets in cellar not screwed to patresses, just hanging loose - and so quick to rectify!). However, there is one code on the EICR that I can't get my head round. Code 2 - 'Two consumer units present'. There are indeed two separate CUs next to each other, fed from a Henley block with 25mm tails. One CU has an 80a RCD main switch, the other a 100a. The circuits are split equally and as far as I can see logically between the two units. I cannot see any problem or issue with this at all. It's virtually the same as having a single split consumer unit. Isn't it? Or am I missing something?
 

telectrix

Disrespected Scouser
Electrician's Arms
Trainee Access
Messages
63,535
Location
cheshire/staffordshire
from what you say, it sounds OK as long as all are labelled in accordance. a C2 indicates a potential danger. could the previous spark have though there was a danger of isolating the wrong CU?
 
OP
kingeri

kingeri

Electrician's Arms
Messages
2,604
Location
Yorkshire
I see what you mean. All the circuits are labelled properly, just seems to me that he was trying to quote for a CU change that in my view isn't really needed...
 
P

Plonker 3

Sounds weird, maybe phoning the original contractor to explain would be needed. If not you then the customer.

In all seriousness though, absolutely nothing wrong with that set up, look at big industrial and commercial units they will have several DBs on site to allow for different boards for certain circumstances.
 
OP
kingeri

kingeri

Electrician's Arms
Messages
2,604
Location
Yorkshire
Thanks guys. I'll have a chat with him and see if he wants to get in touch with the original guy. I've already told him that he doesn't need a new CU - I was just looking for a bit of reassurance that I haven't missed anything obvious!
 

tony mc

Electrician's Arms
Messages
1,426
Location
North of London South of Edinburgh
What is documented on the EICR in respect to the C2 there should be a written reference to what regulation the Inspector is codeing against!

Section K and then have alook in the schedules Item 4.0 section which deals with CU's and distribution boards IMO it should be clearly documented especially if it is potentially dangerous!
 
OP
kingeri

kingeri

Electrician's Arms
Messages
2,604
Location
Yorkshire
Tony, you're absolutely right, unfortunately there is no other reference to this coding. It clearly isn't potentially dangerous, in fact it shouldn't have been coded at all IMO. Hence my suspicion that this guy was trying to justify having to change for a new CU.
 

telectrix

Disrespected Scouser
Electrician's Arms
Trainee Access
Messages
63,535
Location
cheshire/staffordshire
regulation 101.1.15. applies. " if in doubt, try and con the client into a £400 unnecessary job.
 

plugsandsparks

Electrician's Arms
Messages
1,631
Location
Chesterfield
Hope its not a coded issue as i have three side by side. One is RCD fronted for sockets, one is non rcd for lights and garage feed and the last is a rcd fronted one for the garage. I think it was done when 16th was in. I put the garage one in but the other two are Hager ones original house install.
Anyway its rubbish, henley to second cu is exactly how mine is and if i did a EICR on my own house( i must someday) i would not code it at all.
 
OP
kingeri

kingeri

Electrician's Arms
Messages
2,604
Location
Yorkshire
Exactly. So it's confirmed there's nowt wrong with having more than one CU. It's pretty obvious really, I mean I have installed a few shower CUs and CUs in garages etc. No difference really.
 
D

Deleted member 26818

Sounds like the inspector has been over zealous regarding the lack of a single point of isolation.
I would have gone for code C3 myself.
 
G

Guest123

I feel maybe he was looking at it from a 'single point of isolation' view.

Hard to attribute a C2 to that though.

Many would argue each CU to be a seperate installation within the property, each with it's own single point of isolation.

I would maybe have leaned toward a C3 myself.
 

plugsandsparks

Electrician's Arms
Messages
1,631
Location
Chesterfield
Interesting angle. Does anyone know if 537.1.4 was in the 16th. I have had another look at mine and i have three outgoings from the henley all done circa 1988
 
D

Deleted member 26818

Interesting angle. Does anyone know if 537.1.4 was in the 16th. I have had another look at mine and i have three outgoings from the henley all done circa 1988
It's been a requirement for installations to have a means of isolation to my knowledge since at least the 14th edition.
In the 14th, if it was deemed that there was more than one installation in a consumer's premises, then each installation had to not only have a means of isolation, but also it's own overload and fault protection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Permanent unswitched live colour?

  • Brown

    Votes: 99 72.3%
  • Black

    Votes: 38 27.7%

Electrician Talk

Top