EICR - Help on my Request for Electrical Safety Alternatives and Quotes

[DPG]

It's not part of the ring it has its own source.

You need to look at Appendix 15 section A in the regs. It clearly states 'An unfused spur may be connected to the origin of the circuit in the distribution board'.

 

[mainline]

You need to look at Appendix 15 section A in the regs. It clearly states 'An unfused spur may be connected to the origin of the circuit in the distribution board'.

It also says that a spur is : a branch from a ring or radial final circuit.

 

[DPG]

It also says that a spur is : a branch from a ring or radial final circuit.

Which it is, yes.

 

[davesparks]

Then in my opinion it's not a spur.

Great, but that is not what it says in the regulations or the supporting publications. An EICR should be carried out in accordance with the regulations, not the opinion of a faceless stranger on a forum.

 

[davesparks]

It's not part of the ring it has its own source.

No it doesn't, it all comes from the same source.

The ring and the spur are all connected to the same OCPD, therefore it is all the same circuit.

 

[davesparks]

It also says that a spur is : a branch from a ring or radial final circuit.

Yes and that branch can be connected anywhere in the circuit.

A spur can be connected to any part of a ring circuit, either at a point , a joint box in the cable or at the OCPD.

 

[Lucio de Godoy]

Hi All;

Thank you for your support, suggestions & comments.

The picture below is an extract of the new quote, which went from £1,680 (inc of VAT) to £480 (inc of VAT).

Any thoughts on the new quote pls?

Thanks

Lucio

 

[mainline]

You need to look at Appendix 15 section A in the regs. It clearly states 'An unfused spur may be connected to the origin of the circuit in the distribution board'.

Appendix 15 is informative, not normative, and therefore does NOT form part of the Wiring Regulations.

Nobody is saying it can't be, my point is that when a (spur) is taken from the ring final's ocpd rather than from a point on that ring, it's more like a radial.

Apart from sharing the same ocpd it has no relation to the load of the ring.

If the ring was cut, would this then be 3 radials ? or 3 spurs ?

 

[buzzlightyear]

not the opinion of a faceless stranger on a forum

wow daveboy ,i nearly spat my dinner over the screen ,you are not calling him Mr invisible with long fingers typing away, i cant see you .

 

[mainline]

Ring and radial together in the same mcb.
Shouldn't he have said ring and spur ???

 

[mainline]

Not something I would do. What does the radial feed?

It's not a radial, it's a spur

 

[Simon47]

As I said it is questionable and my query was perfectly correct.

I would still argue that there is no question, it is just not an accurate description of the problem.

For you to suggest a 2.5 on a 25A protective device is fine without knowing the installation method is, well, questionable.

OK, point taken. Depending on installation method, it may be OK.

Not sure how the 32A protective device being type B is relevant.

It being the typical device protecting an RFC. It could be a C32, but most likely a B32.
Presumably we can agree that a 32A MCB (whether B, C, or D curve) protecting a 2.5mm T&E (most likely type of cable) is not acceptable other than certain circumstances (such as being a spur feeding just a double socket) ? So if there is indeed a radial circuit (i.e. something that doesn't meet the requirements to exceed the normal protective device limit for the cable & installation method)) rather than a spur taken off at the MCB, and it's wired in 2.5mm T&E, then that is incorrect - but not because it's sharing an MCB with an RFC. It's incorrect because the MCB rating is too high for the rating of the cable and hence the fault description is simply wrong.

Do we agree that (assuming the cable and installation method agree), having a radial off (say) a B20 would be OK ? Also, having an RFC off a B20, while unusual, would be OK ? Now show me a reg that says they cannot share the same MCB ?

So the description is incorrect, and the statement of "needed" remediation later posted by the OP is incorrect as a result. Moving it to an additional MCB (16A seems a bit low, but as you say, we don't know all the details) is one way of dealing with it, it's not the only way and the wording is incorrect in that respect as well - but that is perhaps being a bit pedantic. For instance, if there is another circuit with a suitably rated MCB, and anticipated usage doesn't suggest it causing problems, then it may be as simple as moving the radial to share a different MCB - and that's probably what most of us would do if there wasn't room in the board to add another circuit.
Given that the inspecting electrician gets this wrong, what else has he got wrong ?

 

[DPG]

I would still argue that there is no question, it is just not an accurate description of the problem.

OK, point taken. Depending on installation method, it may be OK.

It being the typical device protecting an RFC. It could be a C32, but most likely a B32.
Presumably we can agree that a 32A MCB (whether B, C, or D curve) protecting a 2.5mm T&E (most likely type of cable) is not acceptable other than certain circumstances (such as being a spur feeding just a double socket) ? So if there is indeed a radial circuit (i.e. something that doesn't meet the requirements to exceed the normal protective device limit for the cable & installation method)) rather than a spur taken off at the MCB, and it's wired in 2.5mm T&E, then that is incorrect - but not because it's sharing an MCB with an RFC. It's incorrect because the MCB rating is too high for the rating of the cable and hence the fault description is simply wrong.

Do we agree that (assuming the cable and installation method agree), having a radial off (say) a B20 would be OK ? Also, having an RFC off a B20, while unusual, would be OK ? Now show me a reg that says they cannot share the same MCB ?

So the description is incorrect, and the statement of "needed" remediation later posted by the OP is incorrect as a result. Moving it to an additional MCB (16A seems a bit low, but as you say, we don't know all the details) is one way of dealing with it, it's not the only way and the wording is incorrect in that respect as well - but that is perhaps being a bit pedantic. For instance, if there is another circuit with a suitably rated MCB, and anticipated usage doesn't suggest it causing problems, then it may be as simple as moving the radial to share a different MCB - and that's probably what most of us would do if there wasn't room in the board to add another circuit.
Given that the inspecting electrician gets this wrong, what else has he got wrong ?

Very well put post. Having said that, I've just had a bottle of king goblin and 3 very nice IPAs, so I may not be the best person to ask.

Is it fruity sir? Is it? Is it sir? Suit you sir.

Etc.

 

[mainline]

No it doesn't, it all comes from the same source.

The ring and the spur are all connected to the same OCPD, therefore it is all the same circuit.

It’s not a spur it’s a radial as stated in the report from the electrician who has actually looked at the install.

 

[mainline]

Yes and that branch can be connected anywhere in the circuit.

A spur can be connected to any part of a ring circuit, either at a point , a joint box in the cable or at the OCPD.

Nobody is saying any different.
When the 2.5mm is connected to the rings 32 amp ocpd and feeds outlets that could cause an overload then it’s not a spur it’s a radial.

 

[mainline]

Great, but that is not what it says in the regulations or the supporting publications. An EICR should be carried out in accordance with the regulations, not the opinion of a faceless stranger on a forum.

It’s not the opinion of a faceless stranger it’s the opinion of a faceless stranger who has actually looked at the install and wrote a report deeming it to be a radial fed from a 32 amp ocpd hence the c2.

 

[davesparks]

It’s not a spur it’s a radial as stated in the report from the electrician who has actually looked at the install.

A report carried out by someone who can't tell the difference between a contactor and a switch, I doubt they've taken the time to establish how many sockets are on the spur.
And even if there are multiple sockets on that cable it would be a spur on a spur, not a radial circuit. It could be solved by making it a radial circuit however.

 

[davesparks]

It’s not the opinion of a faceless stranger it’s the opinion of a faceless stranger who has actually looked at the install and wrote a report deeming it to be a radial fed from a 32 amp ocpd hence the c2.

That post was a reply to your statement that in your opinion a spur from the MCB is not a spur.
You appeared to be implying that in your opinion a spur cannot be taken from the MCB of a ring circuit. I was replying to that saying that an EICR should be carried out to BS7671 and not to your opinion.

 

[davesparks]

Nobody is saying it can't be, my point is that when a (spur) is taken from the ring final's ocpd rather than from a point on that ring, it's more like a radial.

No it isn't, it is a spur the same as if it is taken from any other point on the ring.

If the ring was cut, would this then be 3 radials ? or 3 spurs ?

Neither, it would be a fault which needs to be repaired.

 

[mainline]

That post was a reply to your statement that in your opinion a spur from the MCB is not a spur.
You appeared to be implying that in your opinion a spur cannot be taken from the MCB of a ring circuit. I was replying to that saying that an EICR should be carried out to BS7671 and not to your opinion.

My post was in relation to the report posted by the op.
My point was about whether it’s a spur or a radial and my opinion was that it is a radial and not a spur or a spur on spur.

A radial is a cable from a power source if this power source is taken from a point on the ring other than the ocpd directly then it’s a spur as it effects the load and balance of that ring.

Appendix 15 calls it a spur when taken from the ocpd to a socket or fcu but this is just informative and not part of the regs and think it was more to do with 411.

Anyway that’s my faceless strangers opinion on a forum as it is yours.