Kitchen Ring earth fault?

[richy3333]

Are some sparks are above BS7671?

Page 336

...'This certificate (Minor works) may also be used for the replacement of equipment such as accessories or luminaire,'...

Nuff said me thinks, as whoever wrote the Regs clearly thought different about when to use the MW certificate

 

[telectrix]

the key word is " may " it don't say " must "

 

[robsparky1975]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^agree^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

wait for the 2nd ammendment in a couple of years and then it will be a MUST.

 

[kathwilcox]

please don't say that think i/we all have enough paperwork to do as it is, anymore paperwork and i my aswell have trained to be a secetery not a spark.

 

[richy3333]

Hi Tel'

Sorry, but I can't agree with you there mate.

As you haven't been more specific I presume you are referring to 631.3 when you refer to the word 'may'?

631.3 Where minor electrical installation work does not include the provision of a new circuit, a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate, based upon the model given in Appendix 6, may be provided for each circuit altered or extended as an alternative to an Electrical Installation Certificate.'

The devil is in detail of the grammar? This section does not give an electrician permission to obviate the requirement to provide a certificate? The paragraph doesn't say ... a certificate may be provided...' i.e. complete a certificate if you feel there is a need to do so, otherwise don't? So to the question that the next amendment might change the word 'may' for 'must' - I doubt that would happen so specifically because it would change/alter the context of the paragraph and in any event there is already a requirement to supply certification for work completed by way of one of the 3 certificates detailed in BS7671. Personally I cant understand people bemoaning about completing certs - it's part of an electricians job, a necessary evil, just something that has to be done.

This section uses the word 'may' to offer an alternative to an electrician to use a MW cert rather than a full EI cert.

I would suggest that some electricians could chosen to read this section as they see fit rather than having due consideration for the correct punctuation.

Page 148 of the Onsite-guide also states when a MW cert should be used. Nowhere does it say that the use of the MW cert (or any other cert) is optional as part of our job.

Page 19 of the Onsite-guide for the Building Regs (England & Wales) says that when undertaking minor works a MW cert should be issued, or where work is undertaken by a DIYer then compliance to the Building Regs can be shown by having an electrician insect, test and certify the work by way of a MW cert.

Page 79 of the NICEIC guide for Inspection, testing and certification states that 'BS7671 requires inspection and testing to be carried out, and appropiate certification to be issued,...'

Certificates also assist in providing defences under Reg 29 of EAW Regs.

If anyone can show me where in BS7671 it says specifically that certification is optional then I am happy to change my view...

Back to the thread...

I would support the comments that you should undertake the IR tests and then put an earth leakage clamp meter on the appliance as it sounds as though this is at fault.

 

[dagrat]

631.3 Where minor electrical installation work does not include the provision of a new circuit, a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate, based upon the model given in Appendix 6, may be provided for each circuit altered or extended as an alternative to an Electrical Installation Certificate.'



sorry I agree with telectrix here, as replacing a fitting is not altering or extending a circuit, which I beleive is what the reg is refering to.

 

[ezzzekiel]

Carrying out like for like replacement does not require any certificate, sometimes you need to apply common sense

 

[telectrix]

the other thing to note is the MWC itself asks for "details of the modified circuit". replacing a fitting /accessory is not modifying the circuit. therefore, IMO, no certificate is required (although i do not dispute the idea that it may be advantageous to complete a test of the circuit and issue a MW

edit:sorry, double post.

 

[telectrix]

the other thing to note is the MWC itself asks for "details of the modified circuit". replacing a fitting /accessory is not modifying the circuit. therefore, IMO, no certificate is required (although i do not dispute the idea that it may be advantageous to complete a test of the circuit and issue a MWC). a like for like replacement can be carried out by any householder without any paperwork whatsoever.

 

[robsparky1975]

agree with tel,otherwise the diy sheds could not sell any electrical accessories as the diy bloke couldnt change a socket without having to call someone out to test and inspect/issue a mwc.

 

[steve447]

agree with tel,otherwise the diy sheds could not sell any electrical accessories as the diy bloke couldnt change a socket without having to call someone out to test and inspect/issue a mwc.

Get your point however they still sell Consumer Units to anyone. See a fully loaded G.E one for £50 in there the other week.
Surely a board change is not considered like for like is it?

 

[Spoon242]

Have you tried PAT testing the appliances.

My apologies for swearing!

If your IR tests are acceptable, PAT testing is another option.

There I did it again, swearing!

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Get your point however they still sell Consumer Units to anyone. See a fully loaded G.E one for £50 in there the other week.
Surely a board change is not considered like for like is it?

Could be I suppose, if the configuration and protective devices are all identical to the existing...ie a replacement due to damage to the existing....a CU upgrade would not be like for like though.

 

[Ross1]

Thanks to most of you guys for all your responses apart from the odd 1 or 2 of you. If you got nothing helpful to say, I`d rather you not comment on my threads.


I was back on the job today with my tester, I done ring end to end continuity 0.51 L-L 0.52 N-N 0.84 E-E. IR test, lowest reading i got was 250M Ohm.


Everything in the house stays on, under load aswell untill I plug the freezer in and.....boom RCD trips within 30secs. So my conclusion is the freezer is the problem ( its a smeg under counter job if that helps ) Ive never claimed to be an 20 - 40 year experienced spark, thats why I am on this forum which I find a great source of info from lots of experienced sparks.

Im new to testing and fault finding so am I missing something Guys?

 

[chopper]

most probably be the freezer pal, as said above if all IR test is clear l-e, n-e, then circuit is fine,
just to prove you have found the fault a PAT on the applience would show leakage to earth,

 

[Ross1]

most probably be the freezer pal, as said above if all IR test is clear l-e, n-e, then circuit is fine,
just to prove you have found the fault a PAT on the applience would show leakage to earth,

Thanks chopper, never done PAT and aint got the equipment. Any tests I could do with my multifunction tester on the appliance mate. Its my mates house and dont want him to have to call out a PAT man and part with his cash.

Thanks

 

[chopper]

not too sure , maybe try a continuity test between l-e , and n-e see iff anything shows up, not sure if you could do an IR TEST ON THE APPLIENCE AT 230V

 

[spark 68]

Hi mate,

you could join L-N of the appliance and IR test @ 500v (test @ 250V first) to earth/metalwork of the appliance, it would be better if the appliance was disconnected from the fixed wiring for this, as this is all a PAT test would do with regards to the IR test part. and see what you get.

 

[Ross1]

Hi mate,

you could join L-N of the appliance and IR test @ 500v (test @ 250V first) to earth/metalwork of the appliance, it would be better if the appliance was disconnected from the fixed wiring for this, as this is all a PAT test would do with regards to the IR test part. and see what you get.

cheers mate, do you think that anything under 2M Ohm could be suspect as is usually the case?

 

[spark 68]

under 2M Ohm could be suspect as is usually the case?

I would expect anything less than 1 Meg for class 1 to be suspect, others may wish to correct me if Iam wrong.

This method does not replace a PAT test per se, but will show up faulty equipment.

Ps. if the appliance is faulty, I would expect your IR result to be a lot lower than 1 Meg, as a 30mA RCD will trip with a combined 'leakage resistance to earth' anywhere from about 8K ohms to about 15K ohms, depending on the actual RCD tripping current checked on the Ramp test