immersion on a non dedicated radial

[cprfenom]

I went to a job that the owner felt was a bodged job. It was basically a radial circuit wired at the start in 4.0mm T&E, and then it goes to a few sockets that is supplying a washing machine and tumble drier. From there it goes upstairs to the airing cupboard where it feeds a single switched socket that the owner has to swap either the immersion or his shower pump, and then the circuit goes up to the loft where it feeds the boiler. All the wiring apart from the first leg of the radial is 2.5 T&E and fed from a 16amp MCB 60898

I was always under the impression that from the 60's immersions were on dedicated circuits and in most cases fed off of a DP isolator.

I rang Napit and they have said that although its bad design its doesn't breach any regs and that in an EICR it could only be coded a 3 as it is on a radial and not a RFC.

This doesn't sit well with me as it goes against everything I have been taught and told to date.

Opinions please

 

[Welchyboy1]

As said bit rough but not dangerous, surprised its doesnt overload, must have to use each appliance on its own

immersion circuits usually start out 'dedicated' but often end up with shower pumps and all sorts of other things connected to it

not really a big issue

 

[Lucien Nunes]

16A circuit too small for the job though - immersion and either of the large appliances exceed 16A for starters. It'll probably work but bad design.

 

[Octopus]

Many, many Immersions are on plug tops off socket circuits - and that was OK back then.

Sure we wouldn't do it that way now, nor would we fit air bags to the Mk 1 Mini (the original version)

 

[7029 dave]

Back in the 14th ed you could have 1 fixed appliance fed off RFC, normally the IH. Always better to have on own circuit.

 

[7029 dave]

That does not include cooker or shower circuits.

 

[Engineer54]

I went to a job that the owner felt was a bodged job. It was basically a radial circuit wired at the start in 4.0mm T&E, and then it goes to a few sockets that is supplying a washing machine and tumble drier. From there it goes upstairs to the airing cupboard where it feeds a single switched socket that the owner has to swap either the immersion or his shower pump, and then the circuit goes up to the loft where it feeds the boiler. All the wiring apart from the first leg of the radial is 2.5 T&E and fed from a 16amp MCB 60898

I was always under the impression that from the 60's immersions were on dedicated circuits and in most cases fed off of a DP isolator.

I rang Napit and they have said that although its bad design its doesn't breach any regs and that in an EICR it could only be coded a 3 as it is on a radial and not a RFC.

This doesn't sit well with me as it goes against everything I have been taught and told to date.

Opinions please

The customer is clearly not happy with the situation as it stands.... So more to the point, what are YOU now intending to DO with this radial circuit??

 

[Farmelectrics]

all you can do is code 3 it its up to the customer to act on your recomendations

 

[cprfenom]

The customer is clearly not happy with the situation as it stands.... So more to the point, what are YOU now intending to DO with this radial circuit??

This is the problem, as its not a dangerous situation, but bad design in my opinion. I have stated this and left it with the customer as bringing the circuit in line with good practice will require carpets up etc.

If this was a C1/C2 then it would be an entirely different conversation.

 

[davesparks]

Why were you at the property?
Were you there to carry out an EICR?
Or
Were you there because your client wants this bodge improved?

 

[cprfenom]

Why were you at the property?
Were you there to carry out an EICR?
Or
Were you there because your client wants this bodge improved?

I was originally asked to fix a fan and look at putting the shower pump on a separate circuit as the property is a rental and the landlord knew having to keep swapping the plugs to have a shower or hot water was not ideal.

After verifying if there was an aerial booster on the lighting circuit, I ruled out putting the pump on the lighting circuit and found that the boiler was also run on the radial circuit that supplies the immersion/pump.

The customer just wanted to have the pump and immersion hard wired.

 

[davesparks]

Ok, so why all this talk of EICR codes if you are not doing an EICR?

If the job is to hard wire the pump and IH then work out the best way to do this and crack on with it (after agreeing price etc)
If there is a boiler in there then the immersion is presumably only there as a backup in case of boiler trouble? In which case you could open up the ring circuit to feed it, the pump and the boiler.

Why did having an aerial booster connected rule out putting the shower pump on the lighting circuit? Surely the fact that it is a lighting circuit should have ruled it out without any further questions ?

 

[Risteard]

Why did having an aerial booster connected rule out putting the shower pump on the lighting circuit? Surely the fact that it is a lighting circuit should have ruled it out without any further questions ?

What's wrong with connecting a power shower to a lighting circuit?

 

[cprfenom]

Why would it be an issue just for being the light circuit? Having 2 things on lighting circuit, then that is the difference.

I used the C3 point as that is the way Napit told me to justify it. Its not breaking any regs and its not dangerous, but it is bad design.

 

[davesparks]

How do you define a 'thing' in this instance? And why can you have one connected to a lighting circuit but not 2?

Forgive me if I am being simple but surely the clue is in the fact it is a lighting circuit! That is to say it is a circuit for lights!
Maybe I am wrong but I was taught that it is bad practice to connect unrelated equipment to a lighting circuit.
When you have been asked to fix one bit of bodgery it some somewhat inappropriate to fix it by bodgeing a supply from the lighting circuit.


What do you need to justify? And to who? The customer has asked you to connect the items to a hardwired connection so why do you need to justify to them the need to do this?

 

[cprfenom]

As I have said, I have done nothing. I refused on the basis I am not happy, but I spoke to napit out of interest of the immersion not being on a dedicated circuit and they said that although bad design, it didn't breach any regulations.

The issues is that there is no local point that I can hardwire the shower point on to that isn't also feeding the immersion without extensive work, but the customer doesn't understand why I just won't hard wire the pump on to the same circuit.

 

[ImpededLoop]

Ultimately you're the one who has to sign your work off. If you're being asked to do something that you don't agree with just walk away.

 

[Risteard]

I used the C3 point as that is the way Napit told me to justify it. Its not breaking any regs and its not dangerous, but it is bad design.

If it is "not breaking any Regs and is not dangerous" then how can you apply any code to it?

 

[davesparks]

Why do they need the immersion heater if they have a boiler?

 

[Guest77]

If it is "not breaking any Regs and is not dangerous" then how can you apply any code to it?

Because the women at the end of the phone centre who works for napit said so :biggrin:

 

[Geoffsd]

What is the definition of a 'lighting circuit'?

 

[cprfenom]

If it was a woman, then they had a very deep voice. In terms of the C3 I'm going with its because these days it would be bad design.

Like I said, I'm only repeating what Napit said to say that it is ok, but bad design and that if he were doing an EICR on the same property, then he would code it C3.

All I wanted to know is how many people would ever design a circuit like this and was I wrong to not be happy with the circuit.

 

[Risteard]

If you don't believe that any Regulations have been contravened then you cannot apply any code. BS 7671 makes this perfectly clear.

 

[Octopus]

If you don't believe that any Regulations have been contravened then you cannot apply any code. BS 7671 makes this perfectly clear.

You could argue that the immersion should be on its own circuit.

Not sure a C3 is correct - there are countless houses wired this way, and older ones have 1 RFC including the immersion. Are you going to C3 them all??

A comment on the EICR is the way to go

 

[Risteard]

You could argue that the immersion should be on its own circuit.

I wasn't expressing an opinion on this. I was simply pointing out that the OP stated that no Regulations were contravened but that he intended to code it, which is clearly impermissible.

 

[cprfenom]

NO I am not coding it! Napit said they would code it a C3, after I rang them up to see if older versions of the regs allowed it. I have said I don't like the design, but left it as it is.

I was just looking for a consensus as I would never put an Immersion on a shared circuit, and was always told it should be dedicated.

 

[Octopus]

NO I am not coding it! Napit said they would code it a C3, after I rang them up to see if older versions of the regs allowed it. I have said I don't like the design, but left it as it is.

I was just looking for a consensus as I would never put an Immersion on a shared circuit, and was always told it should be dedicated.

On a new install - yes.

 

[Risteard]

I rang them up to see if older versions of the regs allowed it.

With respect does whether previous Editions permitted it affect the safety of it now?