Unusual DIY 2-way switch wiring

[Smugley]

Hi, recently did a CU replacement. Tested before the change and circuits all good, but one odd thing I found is that the previous owner had installed his own version of a two-way switch for the hall light.

However, rather than using 3-core in a traditional arrangement so that either switch can turn the light on/off at any time, he has simply used T+E and wired the second switch in parallel to the first, meaning that either one will turn the lamp on if it is off but both switches need to be off to switch the lamp off (you get what I mean..!)

Now, certainly not good practise, but I don't see this as dangerous or a safety issue and client not particularly interested in having it rewired as the switches are barely 5m apart, so it has been left as is with a comment on the installation certificate.

Haven't come across this before and wondering how you would code it on a PIR.

Cheers!

 

[Spudnik]

PIR would probably note it as a 4 at best.

Not electrically unsafe at all.

 

[andyb]

Not sure about this, assuming everything is in place & it has been wired correctly I can't see what reg it does not comply with.
It's odd, but that's all.
Unless someone can put me right (which I'm sure they will) I would just ignore it.

 

[Risteard]

Not sure about this, assuming everything is in place & it has been wired correctly I can't see what reg it does not comply with.
It's odd, but that's all.
Unless someone can put me right (which I'm sure they will) I would just ignore it.

I can't see how it fails to comply with Regulations either, and therefore it would not be correct to apply any recommendation code to it.

 

[ACDC]

1st thing that springs to my mind, I would make a comment on the `Correct connection of accessories and equipment` under the schedule of inspections, just to cover yourself at least.

 

[Risteard]

1st thing that springs to my mind, I would make a comment on the `Correct connection of accessories and equipment` under the schedule of inspections, just to cover yourself at least.

Presumably two one-way switches have been correctly connected.

Essentially what's been done is no different in principle to a landlord override switch. It might be stupid in the circumstances, but not strictly "wrong".

 

[Smugley]

Thanks for all your comments, and good to hear your opinions. I agree, in fact I suppose it is also similar to the way PIR override switches are wired.

 

[Davey101]

When I first read this post, my intial reaction was that you couldnt give it any code, bit of a non question really.
However, supposing the house was for sale ,and this PIR was shown to the potential buyer. Shouldn't they be aware that the switches are wired 'incorrectly'?
Put it this way, if you were to move into a house, and find that the switches were wired wrong, would you be happy that the inspection report didnt point this out?

Think of a PIR more as an AA inspection on a car, rather than simply an MOT.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

When I first read this post, my intial reaction was that you couldnt give it any code, bit of a non question really.
However, supposing the house was for sale ,and this PIR was shown to the potential buyer. Shouldn't they be aware that the switches are wired 'incorrectly'?
Put it this way, if you were to move into a house, and find that the switches were wired wrong, would you be happy that the inspection report didnt point this out?

Think of a PIR more as an AA inspection on a car, rather than simply an MOT.

Good point.

 

[Risteard]

A PIR is to highlight non-compliances with the Regulations. If something does not fail to comply with the Regulations, then it is wholly incorrect to apply any of the codes to it.

 

[andyb]

You make a good point Davey, but the switches are not wired incorrectly in so much as they are wired exactly how the owner wants them wired.
There is no reg reguarding how you wire switches. Although I do see your point about a potential buyer, but if you put a code 4 (does not comply etc etc) you should be able to point out which regs it does not comply with. Maybe it should be mentioned in the box headed general condition of the installation.

 

[Smugley]

Andy, pretty much what I was going to do. It's just a CU change EIC, not a PIR, but I was just going to mention in the comments on the existing installation that it was not unsafe or non-compliant, just unusual!

I think it just shows that I have thoroughly checked each circuit before doing the CU change. I've also commented on other things such as rust in several backboxes and a pull switch and kitchen socket which have been made inaccessible (thanks to a plumber and a tiler)

 

[bugsy]

Hi, recently did a CU replacement. Tested before the change and circuits all good, but one odd thing I found is that the previous owner had installed his own version of a two-way switch for the hall light.

However, rather than using 3-core in a traditional arrangement so that either switch can turn the light on/off at any time, he has simply used T+E and wired the second switch in parallel to the first, meaning that either one will turn the lamp on if it is off but both switches need to be off to switch the lamp off (you get what I mean..!)

Now, certainly not good practise, but I don't see this as dangerous or a safety issue and client not particularly interested in having it rewired as the switches are barely 5m apart, so it has been left as is with a comment on the installation certificate.

Haven't come across this before and wondering how you would code it on a PIR.

Cheers!

DEF' Code LR ( Long Arms )

 

[gaffer]

Not against regs,but would put a label on the front the DB pointing out the difference in connection.

 

[Davey101]

You make a good point Davey, but the switches are not wired incorrectly in so much as they are wired exactly how the owner wants them wired.
There is no reg reguarding how you wire switches. Although I do see your point about a potential buyer, but if you put a code 4 (does not comply etc etc) you should be able to point out which regs it does not comply with. Maybe it should be mentioned in the box headed general condition of the installation.

Sorry,I meant to have said to note it in the comments section, rather than code it.

 

[old dog]

suggest changing the switches to vacuum switches/time lag
that way they will be wired correctly

 

[andyb]

Not really Old Dog because the lights will not stay on.

 

[Cobraman]

I know it doesent have to be done and you can go over the top with things but I think a small note in comments will be helpfull, I know its not dangerous. I thought the comment made earlier about someone new (maybe new home owner) trying the switches and thinking whats going on here, it would not fill me full of confidence.

 

[solo2771]

i would want to put something basically to make it easier for the next spark/tester there. how about offering him to blank them off and add movement scensors make everyone happy (and most clients think they are cool)

 

[martysparky]

A PIR is to highlight non-compliances with the Regulations. If something does not fail to comply with the Regulations, then it is wholly incorrect to apply any of the codes to it.

Is a code a Note then? Why not simply Note it as safe, compliant, but unusual.

I know it doesent have to be done and you can go over the top with things but I think a small note in comments will be helpfull, I know its not dangerous. I thought the comment made earlier about someone new (maybe new home owner) trying the switches and thinking whats going on here, it would not fill me full of confidence.

good point


I think the moral here is 'Its good to know and when you know its easier'.

i would want to put something basically to make it easier for the next spark/tester there. how about offering him to blank them off and add movement scensors make everyone happy (and most clients think they are cool)

I agree