Eicr

[D Skelton]

I'm not an electrician but do read the forum with interest. Would i be right in thinking that a correct example of an installation being in breach of the above would be a supposed rfc that was actually installed with one end of the circuit in one ocpd and the other closing end installed in a different ocpd. i.e. isolation of just one of the ocpd devices leaves that rfc live. ????

Yes, you would be correct. This point was addressed in post #65

 

[mache]

Yes, you would be correct. This point was addressed in post #65

Thanks for the confirmation DS, apologies I had missed your referenced post number. I thought it was quite clear what the requirement was but doubted myself when certain others seemed to having difficulty.

Regards
Martin.

 

[ipf]

Remember coming across that one in a friend's house. The dipstick who'd 'done' the kitchen had one leg of a ring in with a radial.... and the other in a 16amp cb. Lucky to find it, really...testing before installing an extra socket....puzzling for a bit, that continuity test.

 

[GB.Kayak]

Remember coming across that one in a friend's house. The dipstick who'd 'done' the kitchen had one leg of a ring in with a radial.... and the other in a 16amp cb. Lucky to find it, really...testing before installing an extra socket....puzzling for a bit, that continuity test.

So it is not just the person who did the wiring in my house then ... I wonder whether it was a mistake on their part, doing the wrong thing by 'accident', or whether it was a misunderstanding on their part as to how to wire a RFC. The latter by virtue either of no training, inadequate training or their understanding of what had been taught.