I'm not surprised - you have considerable form when it comes to refusing to accept that the regulations say things when you wish that they did not.
2 consumer units?
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
Sponsored Links
As I've just written, in the context of the discussion this thread I really don't care....
.... whether you are right or not that the 'electrics' within a house can be BS7671-compliant if it has, say, multiple CUs and no single point of isolation, in the interests of safety and common sense I will continue to exercise my right to exceed the standards required by BS7671 (if you are correct), and will also continue to recommend that, in my opinion, others should consider doing the same.
Kind Regards John
Are you now criticising me for, in relation to the issue under discussion, having the opinion that it is sensible to exceed the (minimum) safety standard which you believe is required to satisfy the regulations?
Kind Regards, John
Again, not the first time you've said you don't care what the regulations say.
Having the opinion that it is sensible to exceed a requirement is one thing, as is advising others to do the same. But you aren't doing that. You are refusing to accept that anything less than the excess you want is compliant. You are saying that you have not the slightest interest in the fact that the regulations reach a different conclusion to you. You're saying that in relation to what you wish the regulations said you really don't care what they actually say.
And you tell anybody who points out what they say that they are wrong.
Damn right I will criticise you for that.
Sponsored Links
Indeed and, in terms of the matter we're discussing, I'll say so as many times as you like ...
... the regulations either do or do not require a single point of isolation when one has two or more CUs (as I recently indicated, I have about seven). If they do require a single point of isolation, I will comply with that. If they do not require a single point of isolation, I will nevertheless still provide a single point of isolation (and would suggest that others might consider doing the same). Hence there is no reason why I should care about what the regulations say in relation to this matter.
You will argue that, because of their definition of an "electrical installation", it is 'clear' that it is possible for a dwelling to have multiple electrical installations, hence does not require an overall 'single point of isolation' which isolates all of them simultaneously. However, your worship of "what the regs actually say" seems to ignore the fact that the definition in question is so inadequate as to be effectively meaningless - since, by that definition, almost anything that involves electric current or voltage 'for a specific purpose' could be said to be "an electrical installation". Whatever else was 'intended', I'm sure it was not that - and, when regulations 'actually say' things which are nonsensical, we really have no choice but to apply knowledge and common sense to reach some workable conclusion about how we should regard/interpret the regulations.
As you are aware, the regs require that a new CU in a dwelling should be made of (or enclosed within) a non-combustible material, and we know that no such materials exist. No alternative is offered, which means that, if we were all to worship 'what the regas actually say', we would conclude that it is no longer permissible to install new or replacement CUs.
Kind Regards, John
I feel hard done by, I only have six. But I do have two "single points of total isolation". The most sensible ( easy to find ) isolator is in the meter box.
The first consumer unit ( CU1 ) has the second "single point of total isolation" accessible by standing on a chair in the kitchen ( not ideal but better than going put in the rain to the meter box ). PME Earthing
CU1 provides 5 sub mains
1) 40 amp 10mm² to Kitchen CU2 which is all RCBO and supplies kitchen and external lighting
2) 40 amp 10mm² to Cottage CU3
3) 40 amp 10mm² to Cottage CU4 ( CU3 and CU4 share the same 20 way enclosure but are electrically separate, both are RCD and MCBs )
4) 32 amp 6mm² to Outbuilding CU5 ( florist shop RCD and MCBs via sub meter)
5) 32 amp 6mm² to Outbuilding CU6 ( my workshop RCD and MCBs )
Submains 4 and 5 are carried by 4 core SWA to the outbuilding which has TT Earthing. Armour is earthed only at CU1 to the PME "Earth".
Maybe not, but there is every reason not to criticise people who look at what the regulations say and point out that they do not mandate what you wish they did.
I'm sure that it was.
I'm sure that was done in order to give designers the flexibility to designate what they think is appropriate to be regarded as an "installation".
I do not agree that it is nonsensical or unworkable to designate the equipment within the dashed line as "an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes".
I do not believe that people would scoff and say "of course it isn't" if they encountered that, and the CU was labelled "Pool House Installation".
That is very different.
It is not valid to compare a situation where it is impossible to comply with a regulation with one, like this, and like the high-integrity earth, where it is perfectly possible to comply with what the regulations say but you just don't like it done that way and therefore argue interminably that that cannot be what was intended and then when that position becomes untenable you say "well I don't care what they say".
I actually have eight, if I count the one for 'generator-only' circuits.
. So, 'almost' do I now, albeit they are right next to one another. I have always 'almost' had a single point of isolation. Although all my final circuits are protected by RCDs or RCBOs, being a TT installation I still need up-from time-delayed RCDs to protect the distribution circuits, many of which are lengthy. There have therefore always been 3 TD RCDs right next to the meter which, between them, isolate everything electrical in the house (I'll keep away from the I-word
)- although there are three separate levers to operate, I think that's pretty obvious, so I regard this as being as near as makes no difference to 'a single point of isolation'. I could, of course, have (for a price) installed a 3P+N TD RCD, but I didn't want a fault on one phase to take out all the electricity in the hose (which can be argued as non-compliant with regs as well!) .... (this photo prior to recent meter change etc.) ....However, I now also have an indisputable 'single point of isolation'. When my meter was changed a few months ago, I got the chap to install a 3P+N isolator upstream of my RCDs. To be frank, it wasn't really to achieve a true 'single point of installation' but, rather, to make life easier if I ever have to replace any of those up-front RCDs!
That's the one slight downside of my setup, too. Although not obvious from the above photo, both my 'single points of installation (which are side-by-side) require standing on a chair or somesuch.
Kind Regards, John
Last edited:
That may well have been in their minds - and that is, indeed, a justification that stillp often gives for vague definitions in Standards (although I'm not convinced that they actually qualify as "definitions"!).
However, as you've just written, if that were the intent then it would give designers "the flexibility to designate what they think is appropriate to be regarded as an 'installation' ". In other words, it would leave individuals free to decide what they feel is an appropriate interpretation of "installation" in any particular situation. I therefore don't understand why you you keep asserting that your interpretation is the only possible one, rather than accepting that you and I (and most others who voted in my poll) have differing views.
Allowing the 'designer flexibility' you refer to creates somewhat of a problem, given that a number of regulations utilise the word "installation". If you believe that the intent is that designers have been given "the flexibility to designate what they think is appropriate to be regarded as an 'installation' ", that means that in some cases (such as the matter being discussed in this thread) they are also being allowed to themselves decide what a regulation requires (or does not require) in a particular situation. Do you regard that as acceptable?
Kind Regards, John
Yes, "someone could have said" all those things about multiple installations. However, I'm glad that you are now using the word "could" and in your previous post indicated that you feel that the intention is that designers should make their own decision as to what constitutes 'an installation'.
That is refreshingly different from your previous assertions that only your personal view could possibly be correct.
Kind Regards, John
That is refreshingly different from your previous assertions that only your personal view could possibly be correct.
Kind Regards, John
I keep asserting that my view is correct.
I keep asserting that when people find that their interpretation creates what they then consider a negative aspect, such as the snag of having to install an up-front isolator, or having to use 16kA devices, that the regulations do not require what they think they do
Only if the designer decides to deliberately do something which creates a problem.
Do you regard it as acceptable for me to say that you don't have to have a single isolator in front of 2 CUs? Do you regard it as acceptable for me to say that the dotted line above encompasses an installation? Do you regard it as acceptable for me to say that you, and Bernard, don't have to act as if you have only one installation?
BAS
There is one easy to access isolation switch for the ENTIRE installation. You have your opinion based on what you can read here. I have my opinion which is shared by the knowledgable and qualified people who were directly involved with the design and installation of the electrical supply in this cottage and it's outbuildings. That is that it is a SINGLE installation.
There is one easy to access isolation switch for the ENTIRE installation. You have your opinion based on what you can read here. I have my opinion which is shared by the knowledgable and qualified people who were directly involved with the design and installation of the electrical supply in this cottage and it's outbuildings. That is that it is a SINGLE installation.
I said "could" to avoid any complaints about the "quote" I used. I'll change it and see how that goes.
I don't think I have ever asserted that. What I have done is to assert that the regulations say something which you are choosing to ignore.
I am not surprised to learn that you and JW2 are not the only people don't regard a CU and all its circuits supplying a discrete outbuilding as an assembly of associated electrical equipment having co-ordinated characteristics to fulfil specific purposes.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
