PIR code for bathroom lights
- Thread starter too old to learn
- Start date
Sponsored Links
They're worth a look as he has a very good point!
Your emergency lighting scenerio would also fall foul of 511.1 as well (compliance with standards).
Which is the reg which says that the PEBs when connecting say the water and gas must remain unbroken? I know this is one which we look for and record if they are broken, but not 100% sure on the reg no.
On another note I think I am about to have strong words with an NICEIC firm who has installed unsheathed cables in a wall but not in conduit/trunking etc.
On another note I think I am about to have strong words with an NICEIC firm who has installed unsheathed cables in a wall but not in conduit/trunking etc.
Is there such a direct regulation or is it more a case of ensuring that if a service is removed then it doesn't affect anything after that?
On another note I think I am about to have strong words with an NICEIC firm who has installed unsheathed cables in a wall but not in conduit/trunking etc.
Nice!
Sponsored Links
Can't find the reg about unbroken main bonding either
Dingbat, what kinds of frivolous observations were you seeing?
I have a copy of a truly shocking PIR here, done by a SELECT & NICEIC registered contractor in Glasgow, date on the form is 23/01/09 on NICEIC forms with such gems as:
No schedules of inspections & tests (p1/2 & p2/2 only)
Box C - Purpose of Report: "Compliance with BS7671(2008)"
Box F - Declaration states "satisfactory" despite 4 code 2's.
Box H - Overall assesment (entry should read 'satisfactory' or 'unsatisfactory') entry reads: "Satisfactory subject to remedial works"
Box J - Nominal voltage: "240v"; Short circuit capacity (of service fuse) - "80kA"
It goes on and on. I came across it after being asked to install some extra sockets on a ring. Their 'remedial works' were to install a single-RCD CU and bond the gas meter. (conveniently ignoring the missing water main bond).
The 4 O's&R's were:
1: Bond gas meter - 2
2: Bond gas boiler pipes - 2 (sic)
3: Remove redundant off peak CU and wiring - 2 (sic)
4: Replace existing wylex 6 way fusebox with a crabtree RCD/MCB controlled c/unit - 2
I found that the lighting circuit had no earth, the water main bond was missing, end-end continuity of the cpc in the ring was broken, there was a socket installed above the hob (the only above-counter socket in the kitchen!) and, as mentioned, the new CU they put in had only 1 (30ma) RCD for the whole installation. There was no EIC for the install, only this abortion of a PIR/quote for remedial works, absent of schedule and test results. The declaration is signed and reviewed and confirmed by the 'proprietor' and paperwork with the cert states that the business has been established since 1968.
The covering letter shows the cert is to satisfy a solicitor with regard to the sale of the property and bizarrely states "I can confirm that the work was carried out yesterday and the installation should be upgraded to a category two"?
The "PIR" cost £110, who knows how much they charged for the 'remedials'
The business is still listed as an approved installer on the NICEIC website and even has a 'trust mark'
Dingbat, what kinds of frivolous observations were you seeing?
I have a copy of a truly shocking PIR here, done by a SELECT & NICEIC registered contractor in Glasgow, date on the form is 23/01/09 on NICEIC forms with such gems as:
No schedules of inspections & tests (p1/2 & p2/2 only)
Box C - Purpose of Report: "Compliance with BS7671(2008)"
Box F - Declaration states "satisfactory" despite 4 code 2's.
Box H - Overall assesment (entry should read 'satisfactory' or 'unsatisfactory') entry reads: "Satisfactory subject to remedial works"
Box J - Nominal voltage: "240v"; Short circuit capacity (of service fuse) - "80kA"
It goes on and on. I came across it after being asked to install some extra sockets on a ring. Their 'remedial works' were to install a single-RCD CU and bond the gas meter. (conveniently ignoring the missing water main bond).
The 4 O's&R's were:
1: Bond gas meter - 2
2: Bond gas boiler pipes - 2 (sic)
3: Remove redundant off peak CU and wiring - 2 (sic)
4: Replace existing wylex 6 way fusebox with a crabtree RCD/MCB controlled c/unit - 2
I found that the lighting circuit had no earth, the water main bond was missing, end-end continuity of the cpc in the ring was broken, there was a socket installed above the hob (the only above-counter socket in the kitchen!) and, as mentioned, the new CU they put in had only 1 (30ma) RCD for the whole installation. There was no EIC for the install, only this abortion of a PIR/quote for remedial works, absent of schedule and test results. The declaration is signed and reviewed and confirmed by the 'proprietor' and paperwork with the cert states that the business has been established since 1968.
The covering letter shows the cert is to satisfy a solicitor with regard to the sale of the property and bizarrely states "I can confirm that the work was carried out yesterday and the installation should be upgraded to a category two"?
The "PIR" cost £110, who knows how much they charged for the 'remedials'
The business is still listed as an approved installer on the NICEIC website and even has a 'trust mark'
A standard rod stat satisfies that regulation. The absence of an additonal safety cutout would be worthy of a comment, but IMO still be compliant with BS7671.
I think you're clutching at straws now
There isn't one.
It is, however, one way of helping to meet the requirements of 528.3.3
A better way is to use separate conductors.
All sorts of incorrect terminology and invalid observations, such as:
None of these are correct 'observations'. This is more like a schedule of works. This is a very common error; sparks stating what they would do, rather than what is wrong and how serious it is.
My take:
1: Absence of main protective bonding conductors to gas service. Code 2
2: ... is almost certainly not required.
3: ... is irrelevant if the redundant circuits are correctly disconnected.
4: ...probably covers a stack of proper observations...
Unfortunately, in my experience this is the norm, rather than the exception and it is rooted in the way electricians have been selected and trained in traditional apprenticeships. Many sparks think that the training they underwent (in some case avoided) years ago is all they ever need for a lifetime's work.
You only have to look at page 7 of the regs book to realise that you need to revise your understanding of the requirements at least every few years. Instead, many view updated regulations as just another exam to pass and many more don't even bother.
The continuous bonding one was REALLY hammered into us at college, i'm sure it is covered in the regs somewhere!!
Off to get mine out the van now!!!
As for inaccessible bonding clamp if the resistance test was acceptable at
the clamp pin and on the pipe (with the bond disconnected at the MET) then i would go Code 4.
If the resistance was borderline then I think I would be inclined to Code 2, just to cover my arse if anything!!!!
Off to get mine out the van now!!!
As for inaccessible bonding clamp if the resistance test was acceptable at
the clamp pin and on the pipe (with the bond disconnected at the MET) then i would go Code 4.
If the resistance was borderline then I think I would be inclined to Code 2, just to cover my arse if anything!!!!
H
holmslaw
..
Ok trawled the Red Bible absolutely no mention of the need for MEB's to be one single conductor, however it does refer to being mechanically sound and so if i were to find a MEB's joined using a 'screwed' connection then I would probably Code2 it and reccomend replacing or as a minimum having each end made off and crimped with a suitable lug crimp at a point that was accessible for inspection.
After having viewed the bonding on 3 flats in Harrogate where i could simply slip all the pieces of bonding out of their screwed connections causing all of them to no longer having earth continuity i really hate to see anyting but a continuous bond from clamp to MET.
am i being a little overly cautious?
After having viewed the bonding on 3 flats in Harrogate where i could simply slip all the pieces of bonding out of their screwed connections causing all of them to no longer having earth continuity i really hate to see anyting but a continuous bond from clamp to MET.
am i being a little overly cautious?
H
holmslaw
..
Don't see the problem as long as every cable is rated correctly.
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
