One way of earthing the pipes.....

Toneyz · Nov 13, 2017

westward10 said:
Cable tied to pipework of other services!!!

pulled up by NICEIC for that once.

Des 56 · Nov 13, 2017

In all fairness the inspector probably (but not certainly)exceeded the 5 weeks of some of his applicants.

This whole cps thing just gets worse,time as long since past that it should have been shelved

Wilko · Nov 13, 2017

wirepuller said:
The reg only states that the CU should be made of non combustible material, nothing else.

Methinks this may be another thing they've expanded on in their own nice way.

DPG · Nov 13, 2017

That bonding cable with the crocodile clips in the first picture - it's not some sort of temporary bonding lead put in while a plumber has disconnected some pipes is it?

Bob Geldoff1234 · Nov 13, 2017

As far as why we now fit metal boards,I was told it was due to the old plastic boards melting and dripping down onto flammable items below the unit and setting them on fire.You DO NOT have to make the board airtight.When AM3 came out I started sealing the back of my boards with fire proof silicone.I was told expressly by my NIC guy that this was not needed.If anyone knows of another reason as to why we have to fit these boards then please let me know

Bob Geldoff1234 · Nov 13, 2017

DPG said:
That bonding cable with the crocodile clips in the first picture - it's not some sort of temporary bonding lead put in while a plumber has disconnected some pipes is it?

Would you call 10 years temporary?

DPG · Nov 13, 2017

Bob Geldoff1234 said:
Would you call 10 years temporary?

Perhaps he went for a sarnie and a cuppa. Maybe he's on his way back?

westward10 · Nov 13, 2017

At least the mice can get into the back of it for a bit of winter shelter.

Bob Geldoff1234 · Nov 13, 2017

You all seem to be dissing my tie wrapping the bonding wires but how would you take the wire across and support it? I can still see no practical reason why i cannot do it as i have done.Just because someones NIC bloke says you can't doesn't make it law.If any of the other posts of inspectors is to go by they seem to make it up as they go along.

westward10 · Nov 13, 2017

No one is dissing you and I have no interest in what the NICEIC recommend or suggest but the fact is they are not suitably fixed. You could have taken a short section of tube from the right side if the board.

Bob Geldoff1234 · Nov 13, 2017

But why are they not suitably fixed?What detriment can happen?They look pretty fixed to me.Where is the regulation stating that earth bonding wires have to be fixed separately from the pipe?

Deleted member 9648 · Nov 14, 2017

There are never regulations such as..."An earth bonding conductor must not be secured to a pipe with cable ties". The regulations are never that specific.
I gave you the regulation that I believe applies, in the section 'Proximity to non- electrical services'. It would not be possible for another trade to work on a non electrical service without damage to the means of securing the bonding cable. That contravenes 528.3.3.
(From the BRB...reg number may have changed but it'll still be there).

Darkwood · Nov 14, 2017

Bob Geldoff1234 said:
You all seem to be dissing my tie wrapping the bonding wires but how would you take the wire across and support it? I can still see no practical reason why i cannot do it as i have done.Just because someones NIC bloke says you can't doesn't make it law.If any of the other posts of inspectors is to go by they seem to make it up as they go along.

The regulations would be one reason, so in doing what you have done you have restricted the maintenance/repair to the installations of other trades.
My other critic is your tails are in free air passing in front of other services, I understand at some point it may be necessary to do this as it taps into the meter/henley joint but would expect to see some form of restraint given the larger distance you have, consider a plumber making alterations to that pipe behind, he's going to be knocking against the tails which unless you correct me otherwise would be acting directly on the the meter/henley terminals.

Midwest · Nov 14, 2017

Spunkywads26 said:
I've a question based on OP photo of completed work. The new CU is installed on ply. I recently had my registration visit from my chosen CPS and the guy who came wants the CU I installed to be practically air tight.

I had a garage install with 2 x 2.5mm T&E and 1 x 1.5mm T&E installed down wall in trunking to CU. I channeled the wall out to allow back entry into the CU. The gap between CU and block wall is about 5mm. The inspector told me that it was not good enough and that I should be filling the gap with intumescent foam to prevent air getting into the CU and help fuel a fire.

Now I stood there sort of bemused and wanting to really argue it but thought for a second and asked about IP ratings of CU and if the front of the board should be sealed as the gaps between the MCBs would also be a violation. He was quite adamant about it and was stating that it all changed with amd 3.

Now OP has installed a CU on a flammable material, I wonder what my guy would have to say about that???

If you can be arsed, I would be tempted to email your CPS with a general technical question regarding the 'sealing' of A3 CU's with intumescent materials.

When the replies comes back, stating there is no requirement other than maintaining IP ratings, you could then respond with your Assessment experience, and ask them to comment on that.

westward10 · Nov 14, 2017

It should be noted no IP ratings are given for the rear of a dist board as it is assumed it will be fitted direct to a flat surface and not raised away from it.

Spunkywads26 · Nov 14, 2017

Midwest said:
If you can be arsed, I would be tempted to email your CPS with a general technical question regarding the 'sealing' of A3 CU's with intumescent materials.

When the replies comes back, stating there is no requirement other than maintaining IP ratings, you could then respond with your Assessment experience, and ask them to comment on that.

Sneaky

Midwest · Nov 14, 2017

westward10 said:
It should be noted no IP ratings are given for the rear of a dist board as it is assumed it will be fitted direct to a flat surface and not raised away from it.

Noted. It is amusing how this reg still gives rise to debate. I expect everyone seen Wylex's Wylex launch NMFS Intumescents to further enhance Consumer Unit Fire Safety - https://www.electrium.co.uk/news/wylex-launch-nmfs-intumescents-to-further-enhance-consumer-unit-fire-safety, which they state improves CU safety

Midwest · Nov 14, 2017

Spunkywads26 said:
Sneaky

I've raised a couple of issues of conflicting advice, given on A3 CU's, by Certsure, The Wire (Certsure) and their Technical. Never really had a conclusive response. Just shows they are human, I suppose, and how ambiguous 421.1.201 is.

HandySparks · Nov 14, 2017

westward10 said:
It should be noted no IP ratings are given for the rear of a dist board as it is assumed it will be fitted direct to a flat surface and not raised away from it.

Doesn't the general rule for live parts inside enclosures apply? IPXXB / IP2X (416.2.1)

Basically, if you can't touch live parts with your (British Standard) finger, it's OK.

Chivers · Nov 19, 2017

Personally I'd have tucked the Tails behind the pipe to the left of the new Board then it could be clipped to the wall and there is also what looks like a ring final floating too. Also I can't see why the bonds on the pipes aren't nearer/next to each other? Where's the MET?

Maybe another photo further back might reveal more.

I'm not a domestic electrician amd my work's not perfect but if i post something criticising previous work I'd make sure mine was spot on.

Share this page

Toneyz

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Deleted member 9648

-

-

-

-

-

-

Share this page

Similar Threads

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Forum

Tags