- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,889
- Reaction score
- 507
- Country
Gus, I wasn't getting at you, just anyone saying that feeding two circuits from the same MCB is against some regulation, as it's a meaningless statement.
Help! Do I have major problems?
- Thread starter gus4778
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Sorry but F**K ME that is the messiest fuse box i have ever seen I would definitely let the NICE contractor do what ever he thinks needs doing . I wouldn`t be worried that this guy is going to rip you off, looks like you have been already .
I have changed two boards this week for exackly the same reason 6 lighting circuits on two breakers, two towel rails and two fan heateers over two breakers . and yes it's bad practice and contravenes the regs as previouslt stated and that board in the pics aint that old is it I would go ahead and have it changed, a day and a halfs work inc a full EIC report
DM
DM
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,889
- Reaction score
- 507
- Country
Huh? What?
Sponsored Links
My thoughts exactly. Where did anyone say it contravenes 'the regs' to feed more than one circuit from a single breaker? There's nothing wrong with it, assuming the load is kept to sensible levels.
OP, your consumer unit is a complete rats nest and clearly wired by someone with no pride whatsoever in their work, but there doesn't appear to be anything immediately dangerous. Unless you need more circuits, there is no reason to change it.
Not having the regs to hand i`m sure that Regulation 314.4 states that if an installation has more than one final circuit then every final circuit must be supplied from or connected to a seperate way in the fuse box.
There isn't anything wrong per see with having muliple wires leaving breakers, sometimes it can be the easiest way of installing/extending a circuit.
However, where the board is exceeding capacity and what would otherwise be separate circuits (sometimes existing circuits bunched together to free a fuseway up), and certainly where you have got two ring finals in one breaker, its clearly a bodge to work around not having enough fuseways*
*I'd class that as two circuits, you'd have two lots of end to end values, and you'd end up having to record the circuit across two lines on the cert and include a note of explanation
Not exactly unsafe, but dog rough and should have been avoided (he didn't offer you a board change and you decline it or anything though did he?)...though in this instance I think I would have planned it to serve the new circuits through a separate DB
However, where the board is exceeding capacity and what would otherwise be separate circuits (sometimes existing circuits bunched together to free a fuseway up), and certainly where you have got two ring finals in one breaker, its clearly a bodge to work around not having enough fuseways*
*I'd class that as two circuits, you'd have two lots of end to end values, and you'd end up having to record the circuit across two lines on the cert and include a note of explanation
Not exactly unsafe, but dog rough and should have been avoided (he didn't offer you a board change and you decline it or anything though did he?)...though in this instance I think I would have planned it to serve the new circuits through a separate DB
T
tonyelectric
314.4 p39
Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board. The wiring of each final circuit shall be separate from each other final circuit, so as tp prevent the indirect energizing of the final circuit intended to be isolated.
Where an installation comprises more than one final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in a distribution board. The wiring of each final circuit shall be separate from each other final circuit, so as tp prevent the indirect energizing of the final circuit intended to be isolated.
You either have a better memory than me or sadder than me to have the regs to hand on a saturday night. 
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,889
- Reaction score
- 507
- Country
Oh dear.
There is only one circuit connected to an MCB by definition. In this case the only time that could be in question is when two rings are connected to the same MCB, as in that case it doesn't meet the UK's 'ring final' special rule, as it becomes a ring with a link across the middle.
But it's still one circuit.
There is only one circuit connected to an MCB by definition. In this case the only time that could be in question is when two rings are connected to the same MCB, as in that case it doesn't meet the UK's 'ring final' special rule, as it becomes a ring with a link across the middle.
But it's still one circuit.
Thanks for everyone's replies... I'm sensing general negativity about this installation, although is it fair to say not everyone agrees whether it is unsafe?
Quite the opposite actually... we gave him carte blanche to pretty much do whatever was necessary which is what I don't understand - if it needed a bigger CU, why didn't he use one? The one he fitted was brand new (or I assumed so! - unless he had it lying around), so he had no excuse! I guess that's what you get for being a trusting fool!
Anyhow, I will try to track him down to see what he has to say for himself, but I suspect if necessary it might be easier to take the hit and get someone else to sort it. I'll also have to speak to the builders who recommended him.
So overall, do people recommend I get this tested and CU replaced?
If so, what sort of money should I be looking at, assuming no other faults are found on testing?
Once again, thanks for all your comments.
Quite the opposite actually... we gave him carte blanche to pretty much do whatever was necessary which is what I don't understand - if it needed a bigger CU, why didn't he use one? The one he fitted was brand new (or I assumed so! - unless he had it lying around), so he had no excuse! I guess that's what you get for being a trusting fool!
Anyhow, I will try to track him down to see what he has to say for himself, but I suspect if necessary it might be easier to take the hit and get someone else to sort it.
I'll also have to speak to the builders who recommended him. So overall, do people recommend I get this tested and CU replaced?
If so, what sort of money should I be looking at, assuming no other faults are found on testing?
Once again, thanks for all your comments.
Your house would have been tested two years ago when the NAPIT bloke changed your consumer unit. There is nothing to suggest that he did a bad job of the testing, so you probably wouldn't gain anything by a £300 test now.
The wiring in the CU is not pretty, but isn't unsafe as far as it's possible to see. That the NAPIT chap did a rough job in the CU doesn't mean he did an unsafe job elsewhere.
The NICEIC bloke is proposing you spend at least £600 if you include a new consumer unit; I'm sure he'll find something else to justify increasing his fee above that. I'd think long and hard about the costs and benefits before going ahead.
The wiring in the CU is not pretty, but isn't unsafe as far as it's possible to see. That the NAPIT chap did a rough job in the CU doesn't mean he did an unsafe job elsewhere.
The NICEIC bloke is proposing you spend at least £600 if you include a new consumer unit; I'm sure he'll find something else to justify increasing his fee above that. I'd think long and hard about the costs and benefits before going ahead.
That's really ugly.
Can't remember who, but someone here has a few photos of CU's done a tad more neatly than that - perhaps they'll post them.
Is yours unsafe?
There's a lot of copper showing on the N feed to the RCD, which also looks like it's bent too sharply, but there's nothing I can see which looks obviously dangerous.
But it is so unprofessional, and indicates sucha lack of care, lack of pride in his work, lack of interest in even trying to do a good job that I would have reservations about anything else he's done.
Regulation 134.1.1 says:
Good workmanship by competent persons or persons under their supervision and proper materials shall be used in the erection of the electrical installation.
IMO the quality of the wiring in that CU does not qualify as good workmanship, and using a CU which is too small does not qualify as proper materials.
Can you be more specific about the date?
Was the work done before the end of June 2008?
Yes I think the wiring was done sometime around February 2008, although by the time it was all checked off etc. I think the certificate was dated October 2008.
Does this make a difference?
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
