Search results

Why would you assume that? I would suggest that this would be an entirely unreasonable and improbable assumption to make.

With respect plenty (most?) of customers have never heard of RCDs either.

Your PFC most certainly won't be 49A - there would be ridiculous Volt drop otherwise. That is the PEFC. Your PFC will be the PSCC.  Surely it's obvious how fault protection would be provided on a TT system. 

I'm not sure what your point is. I was responding to the claim that observations require electrical testing. Patently they don't. Many things would only be identifiable through inspection.

I realise this is an old thread, but why couldn't you have observations arising solely from an inspection with no testing? Inspection is more important than testing, which is merely to supplement the inspection. Many things could pass electrical tests, but this does not make them acceptable or...

Agreed, and I genuinely don't believe that any other conclusion is tenable or credible - particularly where the conditional rating of 16kA is relied upon. And if NAPIT decided that C3 was appropriate without knowledge of the components etc. involved then they have been very foolish in my opinion.

Oh - I forgot to mention that part in my post. The ESB are not a DNO but a DSO!

All block houses here. Done about 3 timber frames only.

I've had lots of dealings with the ESB, and to be honest they're fine so long as you do what they require. They won't accept things done any other way. An 18th Edition style DB will not be appropriate - the work must comply with the 4th Edition of the ETCI National Rules for Electrical...

LOL. If the non-REC certifying the work was caught they would be jailed for illegally carrying out Restricted Electrical Works (as some already have been), and for acting in a manner likely to imply that they were a REC.  The penalties are imprisonment for up to three years and/or a fine of up...

I suppose. But to be fair to RECI they have expelled anyone found guilty of selling certs etc.

The potential for abuse largely arises out of Registered Electrical Contractors illegally selling certs to non-RECs. Whilst this does happen I would like to think that it's not commonplace (at least not anymore). The other problem is if a REC certifies someone else's job without going through...

The company must have at least one Qualified Certifier (QC). Legally only this person can carry out the inspection and testing (and certification). So the others in the company could carry out the work but it must not be energised without a/the QC having verified it. For a large company they...

Out of interest, why are you certifying someone else's installation work? The only time that this is permissible is after having filed a Change of Contractor request, and then only after having received written authority from RECI to proceed. In every other situation it is prohibited and will...

It is prohibited to use a core of an incorrect colour and heatshrink it under ET101. It MUST be replaced with twin brown I.S. 201-4 (new type T&E with full-sized insulated cpc) cable. But the QC (Qualified Certifier) should know this.

There wouldn't be any radial. It would be a ring final circuit with an unused spur. Perfectly normal.  This assumes that the unfused spur feeds only one socket-outlet. If not then the arrangement is not permitted. 

Call an Electrician.

I would mention the issue to them, but I certainly wouldn't have it as a coded observation in a BS7671 report. The only possible argument for it being within the remit of BS7671 is the listing of other relevant standards (e.g. BS 5839-1 / BS 5839-6) but this is tenuous. This does not mean that...

No-one suggested that there aren't any requirements, but simply that they are outwith the scope of BS7671. Therefore an inspection against the requirements of BS7671 cannot flag them up as an issue.

Being pedantic 230V is low voltage.