Sub Board fed from a plug top, EICR Coding

[Ryan G]

Why are you Coding it at all.

Because in my eyes the conservatory is part of the dwelling, and I feel as tho the sub board was a cheap/quick way of supplying power to it.

An EICR is meant to give an electrical engineering overview of if a system is safe for continued use and I don’t want any potential problems to fall back onto my shoulders.

 

[westward10]

It isn't part of the fixed electrical installation.

 

[loz2754]

I would treat it like any other DB
List the supply characteristics, incoming fuse type and rating etc.

It is in many ways similar to a caravan or temporary building.
Fixed wiring and distribution, fed from a socket that is part of a larger installation

I agree with James.

I understand also why some might say to ignore it, because it's not part of the fixed wiring. But neither is this just an extension lead being used for normal purposes. There is a consumer unit fed from it. This consumer unit and its final circuits are items of fixed wiring and so should be treated accordingly in my view.

If the inspector chooses not to view it as such, then surely it should be included in the extent and limitations, at least.

 

[Ryan G]

It isn't part of the fixed electrical installation.

Correct it technically is not, but the fact it was put in like this shows me it should be and surely should be my responsibility to highlight?

I agree with James.

I understand also why some might say to ignore it, because it's not part of the fixed wiring. But neither is this just an extension lead being used for normal purposes. There is a consumer unit fed from it. This consumer unit and its final circuits are items of fixed wiring and so should be treated accordingly in my view.

If the inspector chooses not to view it as such, then surely it should be included in the extent and limitations, at least.

My thoughts exactly.

So can anybody see an electrical safety reason as to get rid of the plug top and instead extend the the 4mm radial (which already supplies 3 sockets) to supply the sub board?

 

[7029 dave]

I agree with James.

I understand also why some might say to ignore it, because it's not part of the fixed wiring. But neither is this just an extension lead being used for normal purposes. There is a consumer unit fed from it. This consumer unit and its final circuits are items of fixed wiring and so should be treated accordingly in my view.

If the inspector chooses not to view it as such, then surely it should be included in the extent and limitations, at least.

And to add if that CU was ever changed it would be a notifiable job too. lol

 

[westward10]

Of course you can mention it but you will have difficulty putting a Regulation against it as it is outside the scope of BS7671.

 

[Deleted account]

Got to admit this is a tricky one.

ive done loads of EICRS where there are numerous extension leads.

I always put in comment.
Excess number of extension leads in property possibly due to insufficient number of sockets. This EICR does not include testing of these extension leads and All testing done with them unplugged. C3 potential for over load If extensions are all in use.

this one is different. A CU from a plug Feeding numerous circuits.

I think the bigger question is test or not to test.

me. To cover my arse. I’d say don’t test and state that in extent installation tested.

 

[Zerax]

Very interesting thread... it may have highlighted a glaring big hole in the regs !

IMHO... if I was doing the EICR... I would have to mention it somewhere, simply ignoring it would not be an option. If there was no evidence of overheating/damage and it was correctly fused with a proper fuse (not some obvious Chinese fake), I'd give it a C3... I can see the arguments for ignoring it though.

 

[telectrix]

re-jig the feed to the sub from it's own dedicated MCB. (6mm cable on a 40A. RCD protected??). but that's not in your remit of doing a EICR. quote it.

 

[Deleted account]

Just had a though. Because it’s on a plug top and bottom would a PAT tester be needed? or would they say it’s not in there remit?
if it is in there remit do they test the plug only?
if they do test the plug only,
Who tests the circuits and board?
not us as it’s not part of the hard wired installation.

lots of questions no answer.

 

[Zerax]

Has anybody checked to see if the EAWR says anything that might help ?

 

[Ryan G]

I’d like to thank all who have participated, it’s been very interesting/enlightening!

Ive decided to acknowledge the presence of it on the EICR and to recommend that the supply is upgraded, but to say the sub board has not been tested due to it not being part of the fixed installation.

It’s then down to the customer what they do with it!

re-jig the feed to the sub from it's own dedicated MCB. (6mm cable on a 40A. RCD protected??). but that's not in your remit of doing a EICR. quote it.

That would be the way to do it, unfortunately that would mean running a new cable across a newly decorated place with new flooring! Either very unsightly or very costly.

 

[brianmoooore]

I'd say that your responsibility ends at the socket. Check that for heat damage, and if OK, that's it.
Certainly make written comments attached to the EICR, but they won't be actually part of the EICR.
I have a caravan outside which is permanently connected to a 13A s//socket, when it's not on its jaunts around Europe. Would you include the wiring of the caravan in a EICR of my property?
How about if there was a 100A s/fuse right beside and connected to the DNO supply of a 4 bed house, the s/fuse feeding a 125A blue socket, with a matching plug feeding the CU? House wiring except from part P?

 

[loz2754]

I'd say that your responsibility ends at the socket.

Only if it says that in the extent and limitations.

 

[westward10]

Only if it says that in the extent and limitations.

I don't believe so as the item in question is outside the remit of BS7671.

 

[Deleted account]

I don't believe so as the item in question is outside the remit of BS7671.

Maybe not, but I’d put it in there anyway because mr and Mrs miggins won’t know that.

 

[loz2754]

I don't believe so as the item in question is outside the remit of BS7671.

Maybe so, but if the householder is aware of another consumer unit, feeding several circuits, they may expect that to have been inspected and tested. So for the sake of clarity I would include it as a limitation.

 

[loz2754]

Maybe not, but I’d put it in there anyway because mr and Mrs miggins won’t know that.

Eloquently put!

 

[Deleted account]

Maybe so, but if the householder is aware of another consumer unit, feeding several circuits, they may expect that to have been inspected and tested. So for the sake of clarity I would include it as a limitation.

Like wise

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Something doesn’t seem right with me classing it as only a C3 either!

The loading of the air conditioning unit shouldn’t matter should it? If it pulls more than 13A the plug top would blow.

My concern is the 1.5mm flex cable that is on the plug top could overheat if too much current is drawn .. but the fuse would operate if there was any danger? Or am I wrong in assuming the 1363 fuse is adequate?

If this was to be treated as part of the fixed wiring, then I believe (though stand to be corrected) that a 13A BS1362 fuse will protect a cable rated at =>18A.

433.1.1 and 433.1.201 are relevant , in particular:
433.1.1 (iii)
The current (I2) causing effective operation of the protective device does not exceed 1.45 times the lowest of the current-carrying capacities (lz) of any of the conductors of the circuit.

In the case of a 13A BS1362 fuse, I2 is ~ 26A, or 2 times 13A.

13 X (2/1.45) = 17.9A