Discuss Wiring External lights in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

I have fished in Northern Ireland and the midges are an absolute nightmare consider how many you will attract with your patio lights, factor in a bug repellent on your new circuit.
 
Just to confirm, the upstairs ring that i am connecting into is protected by RCD/RCCB so i will not need an external RCD.

View attachment 56843
that's a sensible CU. don't allow the scaremongers try and tell you it's now "illegal" as it does not comply with current regs.
 
But i am protected which is the main thing, i assume 'illegal' as not up to current regs, but would have been in 2007 when installed
exactly. current regs. call for all lighting circuits, cables in walls buried < 2" deep, and all circuits supplying bathrooms. nevertheless it's a bloody good idea to have fridges and freezers non-RCD in spite of the regs...... at home our garage circuit ( 3 freezers, a fridge freezer, sauna, my workbench, all non-RCD, risk assessment in my yed.
 
There was at least one well publicised case of some young woman who was killed by a nail that had punctured a cable and was not picked up by the cowboy installers during insulation testing, one of the arguments for RCD'ing everything you can in the more recent versions of the regs.

But as Telectrix points out there are good reasons to have some circuits on MCBs instead (in terms on not having nuisance tripping). One way round the risk-of-nailing problem is to use Flexishield cable (stuff to BS 8436) that has an earthed metallic shield rated able to trip the MCB, etc, in the event of being accidentally nailed.

Edited to add: as already covered the wiring regs are not retrospective, so as long as your setup is safe and undamaged to the regulations at the time it was installed then no problem. Even if there are issues with a repair or new circuit, the wording of guidance, etc, allows for some judgment to be applied so as long as things are sufficiently safe then you don't need a new unit. What is an issue 15 year or more down the line is getting replacement breakers, etc, that are in good condition. That, as much as anything else, may be the case for a CU replacement (as well as improvements like RCBOs per circuit instead of one RCD for several, etc).
 
Last edited:
There was at least one well publicised case of some young woman who was killed by a nail that had punctured a cable and was not picked up by the cowboy installers during insulation testing, one of the arguments for RCD'ing everything you can in the more recent versions of the regs.
I recall the electrocuted lady incident. I would point out though that if a metal frame partition wall is not at earth potential, which it is unlikely to be if it is simply a standalone wall secured to timber, a standard insulation test may not pick up a fault between a live conductor and the frame. I do not know exactly what testing was carried out or whether the job was properly certificated but I am always concerned that when these kind of incidents are publicised it is always assumed that a cowboy was responsible. There are circumstances where even diligent testing may not pick up a potentially dangerous fault, we are all one mistake away from killing someone. Anyone who thinks only cowboys miss things or make mistakes which could have serious consequences is kidding themselves.
 
There was at least one well publicised case of some young woman who was killed by a nail that had punctured a cable and was not picked up by the cowboy installers during insulation testing, one of the arguments for RCD'ing everything you can in the more recent versions of the regs.

But as Telectrix points out there are good reasons to have some circuits on MCBs instead (in terms on not having nuisance tripping). One way round the risk-of-nailing problem is to use Flexishield cable (stuff to BS 8436) that has an earthed metallic shield rated able to trip the MCB, etc, in the event of being accidentally nailed.

Edited to add: as already covered the wiring regs are not retrospective, so as long as your setup is safe and undamaged to the regulations at the time it was installed then no problem. Even if there are issues with a repair or new circuit, the wording of guidance, etc, allows for some judgment to be applied so as long as things are sufficiently safe then you don't need a new unit. What is an issue 15 year or more down the line is getting replacement breakers, etc, that are in good condition. That, as much as anything else, may be the case for a CU replacement (as well as improvements like RCBOs per circuit instead of one RCD for several, etc).
in the case of the electrocution, i understand that the woman's husband or father fitted a utensil rack after the installation was complete. quite probably with the nail/screw not quite shorting. apparently they had been experiencing shocks for some time before the tragedy. she was in contact with the earted casaing of a dishwaher or similar which was the reason for the fatality. so why had they not called a spark to investigate and remedy when experiencing several shocks?
 
Anyone who thinks only cowboys miss things or make mistakes which could have serious consequences is kidding themselves.

That is a very valid point, and a good reason for taking care in installing, care in testing, and not allowing any "odd result" to be ignored.

I don't know what happened in court, maybe someone on this forum will have read about that, but that case resulted in a prosecution and I doubt very much it would have got that for had it only been a "simple mistake" that led to her death.
[automerge]1585757028[/automerge]
Seems there is a write up here but not much information about the specific issues, though the £1000 fine is quite low suggesting his negligence was not considered major:
More here if anyone is interested, seems a number of factors but not a detailed report on the evidence:
 
Last edited:
If there was a prosecution then clearly negligence was involved. However I would make the point again that it is not a given that standard IR testing as normally carried out will pick up a fault to metal frame partitions and the like.
 
If there was a prosecution then clearly negligence was involved. However I would make the point again that it is not a given that standard IR testing as normally carried out will pick up a fault to metal frame partitions and the like.
True, it may not be that low a value and given the past guidance allowed values as low a 1M to be passed it seems plausible an inexperienced tester might not question it. Guidance notes 3 say below 20M on a new installation should be investigated, but even that bothers me!

My own flat, wired in the early 80s long before I moved in, has all circuits above 1G except the rear rooms' lighting which varies from 250M to above 750M depending on the weather (as far as I can tell). No Wago boxes then unfortunately and the muppets put most of the joints in the false ceiling area before it was plasterboard so many are inaccessible otherwise I would have tried to pin down the reason while bored witless these days :(
[automerge]1585757905[/automerge]
There was a lot more on one of the IET forums, but posting links to it seems not to work, so here is the message from there:

"The case relates to the Death of 22 year old Emma Shaw who was the occupant with her 18 child month of a rented 1st floor flat in West Bromwich in December 2007.

The flat was one of new 42 flats that had electrical installation carried out by Anchor Building and Electrical services an NICEIC Approved Contractor in 2006.

The internal walls were constructed of "C" section metal studwork covered with plasterboard. A hall cupboard contained a pressurised water boiler above which was mounted a consumer unit supplied from a distribution circuit from a switch fuse in a an riser cupboard external to the flat. The means of earthing was TN-C-S. None of the circuits in the consumer unit were RCD protected. Circuit No. 3 supplied one of the immersion heaters in the boiler.

The electrical installation had been 1st fixed the plaster board fitted to the metal studding before the installation was 2nd fixed. Circuit 3 supplied a 20A double pole switch at high level which supplied a cable outlet at low level, this in turn supplied the water heater in flex.

The cable to the flex outlet was longer than it should be and when the plasterboard was installed the cable was trapped between the plasterboard and the stud-work. In addition a plasterboard screw passed through the cable clipping the Line and CPC conductors and in to the studwork.

The installation had been energised without any testing and the fault current had blown away part of the screw and CPC. This was verified by forensic examination at the HSE laboratories. This left a high resistance fault from the line conductor to the metal studwork.

18 months later the stat. on the water heater failed and the cylinder over pressurised and the safety valve operated and the safety valve operated and discharged in to a tun dish. The plastic waste pipe from the tun dish had parted because it was not glued and the water spilled on to the floor soaking the carpet. The water soaked under the foot of the wall and in to contact with the live studwork.

Miss Shaw was mopping up the water and had texted her partner to come home telling him the hall was flooded and the "electricity was sparking". he partner tetxed back to say to turn off the water stop cock sited in the same cupboard as the boiler.

Later she was found kneeling in the cupboard slumped forward and apparently lifeless. Subsequent examination and a Post Mortum determined that she was kneeling in the charged water and received a fatal shock when she touched the earthed stop valve.

West Midlands Police, the ambulance service and the fire service attended the scene. The police commenced an investigation for a suspicious death.

The police later arrested both the QS Hoult and Tomkins the electricians mate and they were interviewed under caution. Tomkins had signed an Electrical Installation Certificate as the Inspector. He admitted he was not qualified or competent to do so. He said he had been taken to the flat by the electrical site foreman and told to do ring continuity and loop impedance testing.He said when he got to the flat the installation was already energised. He did no other inspection and testing. He said that in the site hut they had sat around the table with the site foreman and was told the other tests had been done and he was told what to write on the test certificate.

This EIC was submitted to Anchors offices where a type written certificate was produced. The type written version had differences to Tomkins hand written version. The typed version had "P/P C Tomkins" in the single signature box for design. construction and inspection. Tomkins said in court he had not seen the typed form and he would not have consented to his signature being used. Mr Hoult the QS said that he just checked the figures on the form and signed it as the QS. he did not go to site and was not involved in the testing and inspection. Mr Hoult had known Tomkins for many years and it was alleged he knew about Tomkins status as a mate and his lack of qualifications.
"
[automerge]1585758091[/automerge]
Apologies to the OP for what looks like a hijacking of this thread!
 
Last edited:
This was that other particular case, that also gave rise to a Part P myth;
 
This was that other particular case, that also gave rise to a Part P myth;
Ah, I think that is the case Telectrix was talking about (not Emma Shaw's).
 
Thanks for posting that text pc1966. From the information given it is clear that the fault which caused the fatality would have been identified if correct procedure had been followed.
 
True, it may not be that low a value and given the past guidance allowed values as low a 1M to be passed it seems plausible an inexperienced tester might not question it. Guidance notes 3 say below 20M on a new installation should be investigated, but even that bothers me!

My own flat, wired in the early 80s long before I moved in, has all circuits above 1G except the rear rooms' lighting which varies from 250M to above 750M depending on the weather (as far as I can tell). No Wago boxes then unfortunately and the muppets put most of the joints in the false ceiling area before it was plasterboard so many are inaccessible otherwise I would have tried to pin down the reason while bored witless these days :(
[automerge]1585757905[/automerge]
There was a lot more on one of the IET forums, but posting links to it seems not to work, so here is the message from there:

"The case relates to the Death of 22 year old Emma Shaw who was the occupant with her 18 child month of a rented 1st floor flat in West Bromwich in December 2007.

The flat was one of new 42 flats that had electrical installation carried out by Anchor Building and Electrical services an NICEIC Approved Contractor in 2006.

The internal walls were constructed of "C" section metal studwork covered with plasterboard. A hall cupboard contained a pressurised water boiler above which was mounted a consumer unit supplied from a distribution circuit from a switch fuse in a an riser cupboard external to the flat. The means of earthing was TN-C-S. None of the circuits in the consumer unit were RCD protected. Circuit No. 3 supplied one of the immersion heaters in the boiler.

The electrical installation had been 1st fixed the plaster board fitted to the metal studding before the installation was 2nd fixed. Circuit 3 supplied a 20A double pole switch at high level which supplied a cable outlet at low level, this in turn supplied the water heater in flex.

The cable to the flex outlet was longer than it should be and when the plasterboard was installed the cable was trapped between the plasterboard and the stud-work. In addition a plasterboard screw passed through the cable clipping the Line and CPC conductors and in to the studwork.

The installation had been energised without any testing and the fault current had blown away part of the screw and CPC. This was verified by forensic examination at the HSE laboratories. This left a high resistance fault from the line conductor to the metal studwork.

18 months later the stat. on the water heater failed and the cylinder over pressurised and the safety valve operated and the safety valve operated and discharged in to a tun dish. The plastic waste pipe from the tun dish had parted because it was not glued and the water spilled on to the floor soaking the carpet. The water soaked under the foot of the wall and in to contact with the live studwork.

Miss Shaw was mopping up the water and had texted her partner to come home telling him the hall was flooded and the "electricity was sparking". he partner tetxed back to say to turn off the water stop cock sited in the same cupboard as the boiler.

Later she was found kneeling in the cupboard slumped forward and apparently lifeless. Subsequent examination and a Post Mortum determined that she was kneeling in the charged water and received a fatal shock when she touched the earthed stop valve.

West Midlands Police, the ambulance service and the fire service attended the scene. The police commenced an investigation for a suspicious death.

The police later arrested both the QS Hoult and Tomkins the electricians mate and they were interviewed under caution. Tomkins had signed an Electrical Installation Certificate as the Inspector. He admitted he was not qualified or competent to do so. He said he had been taken to the flat by the electrical site foreman and told to do ring continuity and loop impedance testing.He said when he got to the flat the installation was already energised. He did no other inspection and testing. He said that in the site hut they had sat around the table with the site foreman and was told the other tests had been done and he was told what to write on the test certificate.

This EIC was submitted to Anchors offices where a type written certificate was produced. The type written version had differences to Tomkins hand written version. The typed version had "P/P C Tomkins" in the single signature box for design. construction and inspection. Tomkins said in court he had not seen the typed form and he would not have consented to his signature being used. Mr Hoult the QS said that he just checked the figures on the form and signed it as the QS. he did not go to site and was not involved in the testing and inspection. Mr Hoult had known Tomkins for many years and it was alleged he knew about Tomkins status as a mate and his lack of qualifications.
"
[automerge]1585758091[/automerge]
Apologies to the OP for what looks like a hijacking of this thread!
Haha or a problem makes for interesting reading during isolation,
 
Quick update - no longer going to run with led
Decking lights, 2 bulkhead lights only, however im toying with the idea of installing amp with speakers etc for playing music

However I’m wondering would it be possible to run a trailing socket to the amp approx 5m from the external power source and plugging the amp into the trailing socket

or

Because im effectively running an extension from an extension am I better getting a longer cable that runs to the dc adaptor and powering from the external power supply

hope this makes sense

thanks in advance
 
Generally you would be better installing a 2nd outdoor socket closer to where you plan on plugging stuff in with the outdoor cable appropriately fixed to the wall, etc, in preference to trailing an extension lead (that runs a greater risk of folk tripping on it, or drinks, etc, being spilled over a plug/socket lying on the deck).

Obviously your total load is still limited by the 13A plug feeding it, and really you ought to plan on slightly lower load in any case, but if all you are wanting is some lights and a bit of music or occasional outdoor appliance that is not going to be a limitation. It would be no different to a 4-socket extension cable after all.
 
Generally you would be better installing a 2nd outdoor socket closer to where you plan on plugging stuff in with the outdoor cable appropriately fixed to the wall, etc, in preference to trailing an extension lead (that runs a greater risk of folk tripping on it, or drinks, etc, being spilled over a plug/socket lying on the deck).

Obviously your total load is still limited by the 13A plug feeding it, and really you ought to plan on slightly lower load in any case, but if all you are wanting is some lights and a bit of music or occasional outdoor appliance that is not going to be a limitation. It would be no different to a 4-socket extension cable after all.

Lead will be pinned to the underside of the deck and into a void at the end of the deck housing the equipment, so that rules out the potential trip hazard,

for the amp etc I was was going to Power it with 24v 6amp adapter, this can be reduced to 12v does this help or am I better with 24v
 
Lead will be pinned to the underside of the deck and into a void at the end of the deck housing the equipment, so that rules out the potential trip hazard,

for the amp etc I was was going to Power it with 24v 6amp adapter, this can be reduced to 12v does this help or am I better with 24v

Depends on what the amp needs.
 

Reply to Wiring External lights in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock