Multiple circuits in breaker approach

[tank]

Doing an eicr on a landlord board, in a small 1940s block of bedsits, found a type 2, 30amp socket ring breaker with 5 x 2.5mm cables in it. I assume that 2 of the wires came from an empty adjacent 30 amp heater ring breaker that had been damaged (screwdriver busbar metal board bang) and the 5th wire, a spur maybe, or something else.

I just wanted to know how other people would approach this situation.

I looked, concluded that the conductors were inadequately identified for any tests to proceed, wrote FI the cert, and moved on. Any thoughts?

 

[Octopus]

if you are "doing" an EICR you first need to establish what all the circuits are connected to (I suspect most cheap EICR's don't do this) - in this situation determining which 2 are the ring should be easy ..... but I suspect if you haven't allowed enough time then you need to C2 / FI said circuit.

As for stopping the inspection ..................... I disagree.

 

[Dannyg8810]

If any of the cables are not under rated for the protective device can't see a problem
But suppose you'd need to trace it all back to see all is ok

 

[westward10]

You are doing an EICR crack on and test it don't find an excuse not to. Just having five 2.5s on an mcb is an issue in itself but from your terminology I must question whether you are up to the task.

 

[Octopus]

Just having five 2.5s on an mcb is an issue in itself

Not sure I agree with that.

Our last house had a similar set up prior to a CU change from a 3036 board - 2 x rings + 1 x spur at CU. Very unlikely to overload - but when I changed the CU, I separated the 2 rings.

 

[tank]

if you are "doing" an EICR you first need to establish what all the circuits are connected to (I suspect most cheap EICR's don't do this) - in this situation determining which 2 are the ring should be easy ..... but I suspect if you haven't allowed enough time then you need to C2 / FI said circuit.

As for stopping the inspection ..................... I disagree.

Yes, the amount of time I was allocated for the job certainly influenced my decision. To clarify, it was on to the next circuit that I moved after the FI.

 

[Octopus]

Yes, the amount of time I was allocated for the job certainly influenced my decision.

Out of interest, how big was the property and how long were you allocated?

 

[westward10]

Not sure I agree with that.

Our last house had a similar set up prior to a CU change from a 3036 board - 2 x rings + 1 x spur at CU. Very unlikely to overload - but when I changed the CU, I separated the 2 rings.

Nothing to do with overcurrent but the connection of five conductors.

 

[westward10]

Yes, the amount of time I was allocated for the job certainly influenced my decision. To clarify, it was on to the next circuit that I moved after the FI.

So a charge has been made for an EICR but any circuit which appears to be tricky, FI and job done.

 

[Flanders]

In this situation although it is technically one circiut i would break it down to the seperate circuits they effectively are and write them out on the report, if they are connected to way 1 i would write for example
1a sockets up.....
1b sockets down..
1c heater ......
I would say it not further investigation unless its not clear what ths circuits do

 

[Octopus]

Nothing to do with overcurrent but the connection of five conductors.

was fine in my old Wylex board - a far superior connection with 2 screws than the carp we install these days ......

 

[polo1]

was fine in my old Wylex board - a far superior connection with 2 screws than the carp we install these days ......

5 x 2.5mm conductors in a single Wylex fuse connection, Murdoch. Really?

 

[Des 56]

The thread title saying multiple circuits in the mcb is in itself contentious
However many conductors it is one circuit

Having said that,lets be realistic,five conductors in one mcb is stretching the point
At the minimum its a alteration to an existing which has probably made the installation standard lower

I don't like the idea of further investigation and never have
For whatever reason FI is a cop out,either by the tester,the company that employs him or the shallow pockets of the client who's concern for safety could not be the main reason for the eicr