- Reaction score
- 10,616
It is not a planning application it is a building control submission which is not in the public domain there is a difference.
They are still viewable by the public, try it yourself.
Search the forum,
They are still viewable by the public, try it yourself.
V? Is he an alien lizard??
Discuss New Consumer unit without any certification in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net
They are still viewable by the public, try it yourself.
T
The Ghost
I have and I can't don't know if it is just Bristol or what.
- Reaction score
- 6,530
Ha - they've sussed its you V !
- Reaction score
- 7,251
V? Is he an alien lizard??
T
The Ghost
The mixed colours are not a problem. You have the notice required by regulations to state the mixed colours are present. This is to prevent experienced electricians with 20 to 50 years experience becoming inexplicably disorientated and confused when happening on old and the newer "harmonised" colours. They read the notice and hey presto!
T
The Ghost
Re the above.
- Reaction score
- 12
Mr cynical here ... a bit of a lack of forethought on this consumer unit (CU) install.
The conduit drop looks like it probably enters the top surface of the CU therefore the CU is probably mounted directly on the ply behind it rather than on battens, my preference for insulated pre-amendment Amendment 3 CUs.
So, if the above observation is true, the main tails will almost certainly enter through the top surface of the CU and in all likelihood the top surface will fail to meet the required IP rating.
Bearing in mind the length of the main tails coming up from below via the isolator, why wouldn't you take the main tails in through the bottom, or even the side of the CU where IP requirements are more forgiving.
Additional observations which make me wonder how much thought went into this are; whilst the RCDs/MCBs in CU have been configured to allow one circuit to be installed on an RCBO beside the main switch, why wouldn't you leave at least one additional spare way beside this RCBO when you consider there are a total of 6 other spare ways.
I am pleased the installer has allowed at least 25% of the capacity in the CU to remain available for future additions etc. but why oh why wouldn't you configure a 15 useable way CU apparently running 9 circuits to have say 2 non RCD protected ways beside the main switch, then one RCD running 6 ways with the other RCD running 7 ways, or even 3 non RCD protected ways and 6 ways on each RCD.
Sure, the picture looks nice and potentially shows what may be a good install but, look again, and I/you can see things that make me/you wonder just how good an install it might actually be.
An indemnity policy might be cheaper, but an EICR from a professional electrician could be money well spent.
You will typically get what you pay for with an EICR, too many electrical cowboys, sorry contractors, will give you an EICR for less than three figures as they expect their ‘electricians’ to carry out 3 or even 4 inspections in a day, but imho they are not worth the paper they are printed on.
For an installation with 9 circuits an EICR even limited to start at 25% of all points on all circuits should take at least half a day if done properly, add that to time off site collating/adding the pictures of the observations found into the report.
If you don’t get pictures of any observations made and the report doesn’t include a list of the electrical points inspected, it isn’t worth paying for.
Get a professional inspection that is properly documented and sure anyone giving you such a report will be charging double, triple, possibly quadruple what the 3 to 4 EICRs a day cowboys will charge. But, you should get an infinitely more valid EICR that is worth significantly more than the paper it is printed on.
Just my humble opinion, but we should all be able to express our opinion, yours may differ from mine, but it doesn’t make either more/less valid than the other.
The conduit drop looks like it probably enters the top surface of the CU therefore the CU is probably mounted directly on the ply behind it rather than on battens, my preference for insulated pre-amendment Amendment 3 CUs.
So, if the above observation is true, the main tails will almost certainly enter through the top surface of the CU and in all likelihood the top surface will fail to meet the required IP rating.
Bearing in mind the length of the main tails coming up from below via the isolator, why wouldn't you take the main tails in through the bottom, or even the side of the CU where IP requirements are more forgiving.
Additional observations which make me wonder how much thought went into this are; whilst the RCDs/MCBs in CU have been configured to allow one circuit to be installed on an RCBO beside the main switch, why wouldn't you leave at least one additional spare way beside this RCBO when you consider there are a total of 6 other spare ways.
I am pleased the installer has allowed at least 25% of the capacity in the CU to remain available for future additions etc. but why oh why wouldn't you configure a 15 useable way CU apparently running 9 circuits to have say 2 non RCD protected ways beside the main switch, then one RCD running 6 ways with the other RCD running 7 ways, or even 3 non RCD protected ways and 6 ways on each RCD.
Sure, the picture looks nice and potentially shows what may be a good install but, look again, and I/you can see things that make me/you wonder just how good an install it might actually be.
An indemnity policy might be cheaper, but an EICR from a professional electrician could be money well spent.
You will typically get what you pay for with an EICR, too many electrical cowboys, sorry contractors, will give you an EICR for less than three figures as they expect their ‘electricians’ to carry out 3 or even 4 inspections in a day, but imho they are not worth the paper they are printed on.
For an installation with 9 circuits an EICR even limited to start at 25% of all points on all circuits should take at least half a day if done properly, add that to time off site collating/adding the pictures of the observations found into the report.
If you don’t get pictures of any observations made and the report doesn’t include a list of the electrical points inspected, it isn’t worth paying for.
Get a professional inspection that is properly documented and sure anyone giving you such a report will be charging double, triple, possibly quadruple what the 3 to 4 EICRs a day cowboys will charge. But, you should get an infinitely more valid EICR that is worth significantly more than the paper it is printed on.
Just my humble opinion, but we should all be able to express our opinion, yours may differ from mine, but it doesn’t make either more/less valid than the other.
Reply to New Consumer unit without any certification in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net
Similar Threads
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.