• IMPORTANT: Please note that nobody on this forum should be seeking from or providing advice to those who are not competent and / or trained and qualified in their field (local laws permitting). There is a discussion thread on this global industry-wide matter HERE. This also has more information about the warning with regards to sharing electrical advice in some countries. By using this forum you do so in agreement to this.

Discuss Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Reaction score
125
I’ve just done a large job where I fitted a double stack board (23 ways) and by the time I’d finished we only had two spare ways left in the board. So I thought that I’d free up one more by moving the lighting circuit for the loft on to the lobby lighting circuit at the CCU so both circuits are now on the one 6A MCB. Other than that they are totally separate. They also only contain one light for the loft and two lights for the lobby (all LED’s)

To me this is no different from taking the supply from the last lobby light to the loft and actually might make it easier to find a fault if you could separate it at the board rather than mess about behind down lights.

All was good until I decided to use this job for my Stroma visit.....
I was told that in no way can I do this and I need to correct it or it will go down as a non conformity. After arguing the point for 10 minuets I gave in and put the other MCB in and moved the loft light on to its own circuit and all was peaceful again.

Who’s right here?
 
Given it's a Stroma visit, I assume it's domestic?
I'd have left it as it was with 2 spare ways. But I don't see an issue with what you did?

Did they give you a reason as to why?
 
Yes it’s a domestic, new installation in a building conversion.

He just said the regs state every circuit has to be contested to a separate breaker. Now that is true re; reg no. 314.4 but my argument was that as soon as I connected the two together this becomes a single circuit. This is how I read the definition of circuit on page 28 in the definition section of the regs.

I don’t have a problem with moving it back, apart from I was told I was wrong to combine it.

I hate it when I’m wrong and the less it happens the better!
 
Yes every circuit must be connected to a separate way in a DB.
TEs the definition of a circuit is an assemble of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same device or devices.
If I were going to knock the design back, I would choose dividing the installation into circuits to avoid danger and minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault, and facilitating safe inspection, testing and maintenance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So how is this any different from say connecting a spur to a ring final from the MCB? Or installing say some hardwired smokes and taking a supply cable from a lighting MCB?

You're not wrong, the assessor is just being a super picky d1ck!

One, two, three, four cables leaving an MCB... it's not the cables that define what a particular circuit is, it's the MCB labelling. If it says Lobby and Attic Lighting, and it has one cable going up to the attic and one to the lobby, then whats the problem?

How would you record the Zs... you'd do what you do for any other circuit... test at each point and record the highest value.
 
Poor practice. There are two circuits and the results should be recorded seperatly.

As @spinlondon pointed out, the definition of circuit is:-

"An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s)"

To list this as a non-conformity in a scheme assessment is wrong because it does not breach any regulations, which is the question the OP was asking.

Fundamentally I agree, it's not good practice to be doing it, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's not a breach of the regs.
 
BYB Definitions

Circuit. An assembly of electrical equipment supplied from the same origin and protected against over current by the same protective device(s)

314.4 Where an installation comprises of more than 1 final circuit, each final circuit shall be connected to a separate way in the distribution board ....

Neither of these state that a final circuit only has 1 cable

so............ I would say that the OP's original circuit complied 100%

Or the OP could have whipped out a short length of T&E, plus some Wago's and joined the 2 cables just before the MCB and then what
 
How would you record Zs etc on the cert with two finals coming from one MCB?
Wouldn't you find the largest value and use that. Same as if the circuit was made by a MF junction box a few metres away from the board (?).
Edit - apologies to others whose idea I appear to have nicked - should've read the replies before sprouting off. I will do better, I promise.
 
Last edited:
I’ve just done a large job where I fitted a double stack board (23 ways) and by the time I’d finished we only had two spare ways left in the board. So I thought that I’d free up one more by moving the lighting circuit for the loft on to the lobby lighting circuit at the CCU so both circuits are now on the one 6A MCB. Other than that they are totally separate. They also only contain one light for the loft and two lights for the lobby (all LED’s)

To me this is no different from taking the supply from the last lobby light to the loft and actually might make it easier to find a fault if you could separate it at the board rather than mess about behind down lights.

All was good until I decided to use this job for my Stroma visit.....
I was told that in no way can I do this and I need to correct it or it will go down as a non conformity. After arguing the point for 10 minuets I gave in and put the other MCB in and moved the loft light on to its own circuit and all was peaceful again.

Who’s right here?
Well he's not right in my humble opinion :) . Maybe he couldn't find anything to talk about, and some folks are not happy to be happy (won't say who ...).
 
Last edited:
I like an assessor who knows his stuff.

Good practice aside (although it could be argued as @Wes1000 pointed out that by having two cables at the CU allows for easier fault diagnosis - providing they are properly labelled they can be split, separating the lobby and attic), how does it contravene the regulations?

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, if it breaches the regs, I'd like to know which ones and understand why.
 
New posts

Reply to Does this setup contravene any regs or is it ok? in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top