BCO Inspection results

Joined
19 Jan 2007
Messages
543
Reaction score
1
Location
Cheshire
Country
United Kingdom
Mornin' all,

Has the BCO out on Friday to inspect my first fix wiring.

Overall it went very well. BCO was very friendly and helpful - if you're open an honest with them they reciprocate. I was chatting to him and he was saying they're not stupid and can tell when someone's trying to pull the wool over their eyes and if that happens then they tend to be very harsh.

Anyhow, he was happy with the majority of the installation although there were two things he wasn't happy with and I have to put right.

The first was simple and I rectified while he was inspecting the rest of the installation. I'd managed to fit one of the socket mounting boxes in the dining area of the kitchen right below a joist. As I wanted the cable to go straight up into the void rather than up to the joist and then bend into the void, I set the conduit on a slight wonk upwards. Don't get me wrong - it wasn't diagonal, the was probably a lean of 1" to 1 1/2" throughout the 8' rise of conduit and in any event, the top part of the conduit didn't extend beyond the width of the mounting box so I thought it would be fine. He had other ideas though and asked me to rectify it. I explained that I thought this was a safe zone but would be happy to rectify it. I just moved the mounting box over 2" to the left and straightened the conduit up.

The other issue is my arrangement for the appliance ring in the kitchen which will be unprotected. I'm running a ring main (which, when connected to the CU will have a 32a MCB) which goes to an above counter switched FCU with a single flex outlet for the hob ignition. The FCU then connectes to another switched FCU on the opposite wall with a single unswitched socket below counter height for the integrated fridge. The fridge FCU goes on to another, set up in the same way, for the integrated freezer. This last FCU then goes back to the CU.

With me so far? Well, all that's fine. EXCEPT, for the cooker hood extractor, I've spurred from the hob ignition flex outlet. The FCU above the flex outlet will have a 5a fuse and the spur that comes from the flex outlet to the FCU for the cooker hood will have 3a fuse. The FCU for the cooker hood will be concealed behind the cooker hood.

THE BCO wasn't happy with this arrangement because there was a spur from a spur. I explained that my understanding was that the first spur was fused at 5a which, given it's in 2.5mm T&E, is more than adequate. The spur from this spur, which is also in 2.5mm T&E, would be protected by a 3a fuse. Therefore, there is no way on earth that this spur to spur arrangement can be overloaded, especially given the fact that both of the appliances are hard wired.

Mr BCO would like to see each appliance on it's own switched FCU.

I think he's wrong.

He's passed everything else other than this arrangement and has said that if a qualified electrician inspects this particular part of the arrangement and signs it off then he'll pass it, otherwise I'll have to change it (which I don't want to do because I've got no easy solution to adding another switch to the wall above the counter - it will have to be within 300mm of the hob!).

If I get a spark to check he says I'll have to pay for this myself. Again, I disagree, I think it should be at the LABC's expense.

The BCO officer was also slightly unhappy about the fact that there were two sockets in the kitchen which would be unprotected. It took me a few minutes to convince him that they were just two singles, both unswitched, below counter top, both with their own switched FCU above counter top, which will only be used for a fridge and a freezer. I am not going to be clambering into a cabinet to unplug the freezer in order to plug in a lawnmower or something similar!

He also commented that, aside from the issues highlighted, it was a good neat job and would make it nice and easy to replace cables in the future once I've covered it all up because it's all in conduit and isn't congested anywhere.

Any thoughts?

Apologies for the long post.

Regards

Fred

P.S. I know I could have just put a radial in for the unprotected Kitchen ring but I'm happier with rings and in any event, have plenty of cable to be able afford the run of cable back to the CU.
 
Sponsored Links
Hi Fred

Cant see a problem with your 1st issue so long as the cable is positioned in the width of the accessory, did you point this out to him.

Regarding the spur form a spur, so long as the first spur is fused then whats the problem with adding more FCUs the whole SPUR will be protected by your 1st fuse anyway. :rolleyes:
 
You have spurred from the Hob flex oulet which means that each appliance is not independent - if you want to isolate the hood, you'll need to isolate the hob too.

Why, when installing the ring, didn't you put the hood on the ring too, with it's own FCU feeding a flex outlet like the rest?

It should be like that. To have no independent switching is not good.
 
SS what about 464-01-03 secoond paragraph.
"A single functional switching device may control several items of equipment intended to operate simultaneously."

A bit of a stretch I know but the cooker hood and hob are surly intended to be used simultaneously - however It doesnt come under the Isolation umbrella it comes under Control so am I stretching this too thin?
 
Sponsored Links
FredFlintstone said:
The BCO officer was also slightly unhappy about the fact that there were two sockets in the kitchen which would be unprotected. It took me a few minutes to convince him that they were just two singles, both unswitched, below counter top, both with their own switched FCU above counter top, which will only be used for a fridge and a freezer. I am not going to be clambering into a cabinet to unplug the freezer in order to plug in a lawnmower or something similar!
i thought this was becoming standard practice, not just because johnd and other on here keep recommending it, but i have noticed it newly built houses, glad you were able to convince him anyway.
 
RobFurn said:
Hi Fred

Cant see a problem with your 1st issue so long as the cable is positioned in the width of the accessory, did you point this out to him.

Certainly did point it out but he was adament. Was easy enough to fix anyway.

RobFurn said:
Regarding the spur form a spur, so long as the first spur is fused then whats the problem with adding more FCUs the whole SPUR will be protected by your 1st fuse anyway. :rolleyes:

Well that's what I thought but hey, the BCO knows best (well, actually, a spark knows best but I'm under the thumb of the BCO on this one.

Regards

Fred
 
Glad it went well with the BCO. Just a few questions really as I'll be meeting up with the BCO in April. Is he coming back or is that it? Did you attach the sockets etc. to the wiring or have you still got to do that? What conduit did you use? How did you fix that conduit to the wall? and finally how do you plan on covering the conduit wiring? Hope I do as well on my BCO visit. Steve.
 
securespark said:
You have spurred from the Hob flex oulet which means that each appliance is not independent - if you want to isolate the hood, you'll need to isolate the hob too.

I know, but I figured it's only the hob ignition and it's unlikely to need isolating - the most likely isolation requirement would be for the hood and if that's necessary I can live without the hob ignition - I smoke plenty and always have a stash of lighters which I can use to light the hob.

securespark said:
Why, when installing the ring, didn't you put the hood on the ring too, with it's own FCU feeding a flex outlet like the rest?

In an ideal world that's what I'd like to do but wall space is very limited and it's already bordering on overcrowded with electrical switches and sockets. The only logical place to put a switch for the hood would be on a section of wall which, due to already having a double socket and switched FCU (for the hob ignition), would mean it can only go on a bit which is within 300mm of the hob which is a no no. I could stick the switch on another wall but then it will be in an illogical place and probably not within 2m of the hood.

securespark said:
It should be like that. To have no independent switching is not good.

I tend to agree it's generally not good practice but it's only a hob ignition and extractor which I'd be happy to isolate together.

Regards

Fred
 
RobFurn said:
SS what about 464-01-03 secoond paragraph.
"A single functional switching device may control several items of equipment intended to operate simultaneously."

A bit of a stretch I know but the cooker hood and hob are surly intended to be used simultaneously - however It doesnt come under the Isolation umbrella it comes under Control so am I stretching this too thin?

It's a good point and I could probably get away with that if it were an electric hob but since it's gas then it will be possible to use the hob without the hood.
 
sm1thson said:
i thought this was becoming standard practice, not just because johnd and other on here keep recommending it, but i have noticed it newly built houses, glad you were able to convince him anyway.

That's what I thought and I was astounded when he suggested the sockets should be protected.

I explained to him that there was no way those sockets would be used for anything other than a fridge and freezer and that for obvious reasons I wanted those two appliances.

I explained that I would be more than happy to use a flex outlet for each instead which would make it impossible to plug anything into but that gave me concerns because I travel a lot for work (true, except that I'm being made redundant and won't be travelling anymore) and should one of those two essential appliances break down while I'm away, my wife would need to be able to change the appliance. In my opinion, it's much safer for her to unplug the old and plug in the new than for her to try and hard wire the appliance as she doesn't have the first idea of how to wire a plug so there was a good chance she could get it wrong.

He seemed to accept this and see the logic in it - shame he couldn't see the logic in the fact that the sockets will be inaccessible to anything other than said appliances.
 
steve1811uk said:
Glad it went well with the BCO. Just a few questions really as I'll be meeting up with the BCO in April. Is he coming back or is that it? Did you attach the sockets etc. to the wiring or have you still got to do that? What conduit did you use? How did you fix that conduit to the wall? and finally how do you plan on covering the conduit wiring? Hope I do as well on my BCO visit. Steve.

Hi Steve,

BCO is coming back. This was first fix inspection. Concentrating solely on the installation and routing of the cabling with no sockets or fixings connected or anything. He looked at absolutely everything, tracing cables up the wall, across ceilings, through joists, down other walls etc. He commented on some existing cabling that passes over heating pipes etc which I'm already aware of and which I'll be rectifying although he did say that he was just commenting on this - he can't force me to fix it.

There was a bit which I'd already covered up (oops) which he was happy to pass based upon searching for the cables behind the plasterboard with a detector and based upon the fact that he was happy with the rest of the installation. He pointed out that he could, if he so wanted, make me uncover them for him to inspect. This comes back to the point about if they feel you're taking them for a ride. Because I'm open and honest and not trying to hide anything, they have no reason to believe I'm trying to hide anything, they just realise I was a bit too keen to get the bare brick covered.

I used a mixture of conduit. I had a huge overstock of that rectangular stuff with the removable top from some work that was done in my office so I mainly used that because it's easy to fix to the wall, run the cable and then stick the capping on. It also had the added advantage that the capping can be removed so the BCO could inspect the cable itself (something which I didn't think he'd do. I thought he'd just want to see the route of the cable but maybe he was just being nosey. I fixed this conduit to the wall with screws and just stick a little bit of insulation tape over the screw head in case it chaffed the cables.

I also used a bit of oval conduit and fixed that to the wall with conduit clips. I only used this on short runs though because I figured it was easier with the rectangular stuff.

I'll be covering the conduit with plasterboard, dot n dab. I know that means the plasterboard will be further from the wall than if I'd chased the conduit into the brickwork but, the walls aren't level and I would have had to leave this gap anyway to ensure the walls were plumb. There is one wall which I will float and set over the conduit and this has the same plumb issues anyway.

BCO will be back again. I've got to let them know when I'll be ready for them and they will come and inspect the new wiring with the accessories attached. I need to speak to them about this though because I'm a little unclear of I should be doing this, getting them back for the next inspection and then doing the CU or if I should be doing the CU at the same time so it can be inspected along with the new circuits at the same time.

Good luck with your BCO inspection. Nothing to be scared of (although I wasn't thinking that the ight before the inspection). Just be open and honest and if you have any questions then line 'em up for the BCO - they're very helpful.

Regards

Fred.
 
All the hoods I have installed say the hob should not be used unless the hood extractor is turned on so the two are generally not used independently, although we sometimes use the extractor when the hob is not on!

Something about heat build up.
 
IJWS15 said:
All the hoods I have installed say the hob should not be used unless the hood extractor is turned on so the two are generally not used independently, although we sometimes use the extractor when the hob is not on!

Something about heat build up.

Cheers,

My argument to BC is that I can use the hob regardless of whether or not the hood is switched independently and therefore it makes no difference at all if the hood and hob ignition are on the same switch.

BC's argument though is that they say I can't spur from a spur, which I know I can because the first spur is fused. Not only that but it's fused at less than 13a so there is no way on this earth that spur can be overloaded.

I'll have to get a spark out to certify that little bit of the install. The problem is that I don't think any electrician on this planet would certify one part of an install without testing everything, including the bonding arrangements. All is up to scratch, I know it is but a spark isn't going to be satisfied with my say so.

Regards

Fred
 
Change the Hob flex outlet to a socket outlet, therefore the hob will have to be connectoed via 3 pin plug (with a fuse in it)

Then run from the Hob socket outlet to the cooker hood (change to flex outlet)

This means the Switched FCU will have a fuse to protect the cable and cooker Hood and the fuse in the 3 pin plug will protect the cooker cable adn cooker

i.e. only one FCU required

I doubt the cooker rating will be much so a small fuse will suffice in the
FCU to cover the whole SPUR but providing enough protection for the Hood

FCU-->--socket outlet (hob)---->----cooker hood flex outlet
 
just for my own clarification here..

by unprotected you mean not rcd protected?

if so then what is the problem with fitting an rcbo just to satisfy the BCO?

and let me get this right in my head..

you have a ring which just feeds 3 fused spurs?
one for the cooker ignition / extract, one for the fridge and one for the freezer?

all other sockets on their own rcd protected circuit?
 

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
Back
Top