Search results

But we don't know *why* rccb's (100mA or otherwise) have been fitted in the first place, so some conjecture is required?

Paul, I've given a generic answer based on the limited info available. There might be a flat above, or B & B, who knows. I understand the skilled person argument. Mark.

:^O Lol @ this thread you nutters :^O I remember my first night in there now :Blushing I didn't realise I'd have to get in the barrel straight away :o

Don't lose sight of what you are actually doing. You are providing a report on the existing installation and it's compatability with current standards (ie 17th edition) Therefore 100 mA circuits won't be up to scratch, but that doesn't mean that they MUST be replaced. It's a code 4, doesn't...

Dave, I find that some 5 years after Part P came into existence, there's actually very few people now that don't know about it. Sure, there's some exceptions, but on the whole... (and on mybuilder/rated people type wensites theres a part p disclaimer info thing) So it's whether you/I think...

ebay have 2nd hand ones now and again, everywhere else will be about

Where's the requirement to be insured and registered to do PIR's come from?

shoot that should be 200 ohms lol also check whether you've got a 'noise' button of your meter, y'know, anti trip technology thingymybob

I'd say that it's set on too low a range, go up to 20 ohms IMO

If I find out that a CU has been replaced with no notification I report direct to the local BC via email. ]:) (the customers name and address not the cowboy cos they go after the householder first and then the cowboy only if the work is duff) Nothing so far has been done but it's made me feel...

Clearly, what is best practice and what someone can 'get away with' are two different things. Is this the place for tut tutting over another's moral judgement? Each to their (legal) own I say. In the meantime: Let's hear it for Chris Applaud Smiley Applaud Smiley Applaud Smiley I also think...

Cheers mate! :D I've re-read the thread again, sort of thought that we was starting to go round in circles, hence the coat, but post number 9 reveals more to me now on second read. Basically it appears that the flat upstairs has lighting circuits (which a further assumption would be some...

The thing is KME, at least half the installations in this country WILL comply with the version of 7671 that they were installed to, and that might well mean no rcd protection against your above (unlikely?) scenario. Where's the requirement (in law) to bring up to current regs? As well as that...

By replying, it could look like I'm fishing for an argument... I promise that's not the case! :) The 'inconvienience' of all circuits failing is for the installer to decide and put his name to. What happens on TT installations then?

I thought the sockets *were* on the RCD side of the board? I'm not sure that we're on the same wavelength on other matters either. Where is the suggestion that the installer has failed to install to 7671? (Pat testing issues being another matter of course)

If I'm reading the thread right there wouldn't be any standing in court, it's quite clear that these premises, by charging people to look after their kids, is a commercial building, and as such, a place of work, and it then follows that the electrical installation MUST be under the control of a...

So, in the case of a DB2, isn't that effectively the Zs then mate?

Assuming the SWA has a Cpd of it's own, the second garage CU is effectively no different to a FCU, so it's one (EIC) cert for the whole thing, new circuit supplying garage.

Ah! So it's the 100 Amp dno fuse that's the cpd then? ]:)

For rings, I test at the CU and do R1, which gets a tick in the box, Rn, which also gets a tick, and R2, which gets recorded. I also do a quick x 1.66 as a cross check. I've never had a figure that raises my eyebrows