Recent Electircal Work Questions

[securespark]

So your so called spark's 20A radials are pure fiction!

 

[vards01]

The new electrician is coming tomorrow morning. I have phoned Nic whom also told me the crimps should be in an enlosure also.....so another one on the list. Unfortunately as faras ccomplaints go neither nic or building control were interested. nic wanted letters asking the Electrican to rectify his works and correspondence along these lines before entertaining a formal complaint. There is nothing fictional about his 20a radials other than there is no 20a mcb.

 

[JohnW2]

There is nothing fictional about his 20a radials other than there is no 20a mcb.

That makes them pretty fictional, because the only thing which makes a '20A radial' a 20A radial is the 20A MCB! From what you have described, what you appear to have are 32A radials (radials protected by a 32A MCB) wired with 2.5mm² (rather than the required 4mm²) cable!

Kind Regards, John

 

[vards01]

I'll let you all know what the new electrician has to say......

 

[securespark]

Brilliant!

Thank you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So coming from the breaker on the left are 2 radials, not a ring?

If so the "electrician" has committed a criminal offence.

 

[JohnW2]

So coming from the breaker on the left are 2 radials, not a ring? ... If so the "electrician" has committed a criminal offence.

That appears to be what we have been told ...

1 radial circuit containing 3 x twin 13A socket joined in junction box to 2 x twin 13A sockets + 1 x switched & fused extractor hood. ... On a separate radial circuit 1 x twin 13A socket. .. These two radial circuits are wired to 1 x 32mcb labelled 'kitchen sockets'

Are you absolutely certain that those two 'radials' aren't joined, creating a ring? Do I also take it that the wiring is all in 2.5mm² cable? If so, those two radials on a 32A MCB are seriously non-complaint.

Absolutely certain one is literally right next to the CU and the other he has removed from the old ring circuit (existing for the rest of the house) and then joined in the junction box as a radial circuit. All on 2.5mm2

Kind Regards, John

 

[Aragorn84]

been reading thru this with interest, but something struck me as odd, why is it "not allowed" to have different brand MCB's fitted to a CU? I thought these were all fairly standardised din rail devices?

Is it simply becuase the manufacturer of the board says you must use their own MCB's and not doing so is ignoring the manufacturers instructions? Or is there some other law/regulation that states it must all match in some way?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

1) Only the DIN rail mounting is standardised, other dimensions and shapes etc are not. OK - makers seem to have adopted a de-facto standard for width, but forward projections vary, so covers might not fit, and the position and type of bus-bar tunnels definitely varies so with the wrong make you might find that the entry is too high, too low, too far forward, too far back, or is designed for a different type of busbar.

2) If you mix and match then you lose the type approval for the unit as a CU which provides an exemption from the regulations which would otherwise prevent you from using breakers with such a low maximum breaking capacity.

 

[Aragorn84]

Interesting, any more info on this exemption, and why the maximum breaking capacity is lower than it should be?

 

[vards01]

New electrician confirmed all faults.

Suggested new consumer unit with spare bays. He will mark the chases on the walls and I will chase out and fill after cable has been placed in conduit. Quoted 1k for the works..... which also included doing away with switched surface mount boxes for appliamces and using fused spurs.

Next stop trading standards.

 

[bernardgreen]

If so the "electrician" has committed a criminal offence.

It is criminal as is. Or does it only become the offence of criminal negligance if there is a event ( fire, injury, fatality ) as a direct result of the work being non compliant.

It would not be good if any accusation of a criminal offence was made when the work in itself was only negligent.

 

[JohnW2]

If so the "electrician" has committed a criminal offence.

It is criminal as is. Or does it only become the offence of criminal negligance if there is a event ( fire, injury, fatality ) as a direct result of the work being non compliant. It would not be good if any accusation of a criminal offence was made when the work in itself was only negligent.

Nor, of course, would it be particularly 'good' if one had to wait until someone was killed/injuried, or property destroyed, before one could bring criminal charges. I'm no lawyer, but it would seem ridiculous that the law would allow, for example, someone to construct a very dangerous building yet not be guilty of a criminal offence until some catastrophe occurred as a result.

In any event, I'm not sure that we need to talk about criminal negligence, do we? Isn't non-compliance with Part P of the Building Rgs in itself a criminal offence (regardless of whether there have been any consequences of the non-compliance)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[vards01]

A more positive response from trading standards, awaiting a call back from their specialist department.

Does the 1k sound about right for this job? Including the new consumer unit, put all circuits on a ring, do away with switched surface mount boxes and have switched fuse spur points on the worktops. Put all kitchen sockets on separate ring. I will be doing the chasing and filling.

 

[securespark]

If (and it is a big "if") you can afford it, go for RCBO's.

How have you left things with Spark Mark I, now that Spark Mark II is on the scene?

Spark Mark II must not forget that regs suggest appliances 2 kW+ have own circuit.

Or even a 4 milli 32A radial: you don't HAVE to have a ring final for the kitchen.