Elcb

[Sidewinder]

Yes it should ,as close to the meter as possible.

This does not have to be a 30mA instantaneous device.

It can be a 100, 300 500mA time delay depending on the exact conditions of the install.

 

[steptoe]

nice to see

Andy

sparkytim

and

a1spark

are still happy to leave this installed,

as they are so adamant it is perfectly fine and legal to leave this as is.

 

[kme]

For my own peace of mind:

VOLEB`s get ripped out.

If iso is required, iso is installed.

legalities aside, I think it looks more professional than leaving a scabby thing there...:

"Well, you can use it as an isolator!"

Put yourself in a discerning customers` position. Sounds like a cop-out, IMO.

Nice, new CU with an old lump of carp next to it? I don`t think so - not on MY jobs.

Argue legality if you wish - I`ll just look as aesthetics - and rip it out!

KME

 

[steptoe]

For my own peace of mind:VOLEB`s get ripped out.

If iso is required, iso is installed.

legalities aside, I think it looks more professional than leaving a scabby thing there...:

"Well, you can use it as an isolator!"

Put yourself in a discerning customers` position. Sounds like a cop-out, IMO.

Nice, new CU with an old lump of carp next to it? I don`t think so - not on MY jobs.

Argue legality if you wish - I`ll just look as aesthetics - and rip it out!

KME

my main point is you CANNOT use it as an iso

OP told us it is TT

therefore requires an RCD as an ISO

every other point can therefore be disregarded from that point on.

that is why I stated it was illegal,

the only iso permitted under statutory law on a TT install is an RCD that will disconnect all live poles simultanuously. (<spelt wrong!)

EDIT:- although some of you mistook the reasons I stated this was illegal was purely for the fitment of the voltage trip, I am still of the opinion that having a voltage operated trip fitted whether energised or not is illegal.

 

[kme]

Albert:

Where is it written that the isolator for a TT has to be an RCD?

Does that mean the these new "Siemens" meters, with the quarter turn screw to isolate the tails are unsuitable for TT?

Not being funny (you should know that anyway ), but this appears to be something I wasn`t aware of.

If I install a CU to a TT, e.g 10M from HED; and need an iso beside the incomer; even if the (double insulated) tails are in surface trunking (so effectively triple isolated), that iso MUST be an RCD?

S-type? 100mA? 300mA I`m honestly curious bud.

 

[steptoe]

OK, its not well worded,

but a TT frontend needs to be RCD protected, fair enough, most TTs are MC, but not all,

but why install 2 isolators?

IMHO,

the RCD on a TT should always be the first isolator from the supply,

but then again, I dont make the rules and even if I would class the tails from the isolator to the RCD to be unprotected and a class1 then maybe most other people wouldnt.

 

[steptoe]

just re-read your post KME, and yes I would say youy still need an RCD at the HED,

the 1/4 turn iso is exactly that, an ISO, remember that on TT the RCD is solely for protection to property etc, I really cant remember all these regs etc. the RCD protects the cable, not you, unlike the normal 30mA rcd which is there to protect the consumer.

 

[sparkytim]

Rcd protection is Not required for double insulated Meter tails up to an Insulated Consumer Unit.

If it was then most TT installations would be Non compliant.

Take a look at OSG page 24 and 25 Fig. 3.2, Fig 3.3 and Fig 3.4 for the options.

You will note RCD protection starts at the Consumer Unit.

 

[a1spark]

I would have to agree with sparkytim on that one too Steptoe. Now dont get me wrong on this, i always appreciaete your input to threads mate ,but you seem to be a bit shaky in your advice on the issues raised in this one. I look at it from a PIR point of veiw and whether or not the opinion stated would be a fair assesment, remember you will be classing installations as unsatisfactory, based on your views expressed here, therefore you would have to justify your claims to the Client....but as you have stated earlier, each to their own interpretation...thats no problem !

 

[ianmacd]

Please remember building regs compliance makes BS7671 statutory.

No they do not. In the opinion of the secretary of state, Part P can be satisfied by complying with 7671 but its not the only way.

 

[septiclecky]

Peeps,Steps may well be correct, depending on the installation and the statutory legislation it has to comply to and the exact wording in the legislation.

Please remember building regs compliance makes BS7671 statutory.

EARW89 is statutory, PUWER98 is statutory, MHSWR is statutory.

Why are we told when doing 2382 it is non-statutory it can not be both

 

[ianmacd]

Why are we told when doing 2382 it is non-statutory it can not be both

JINX

 

[septiclecky]

JINX

???? :C :C:C:C

 

[ianmacd]

From wikipedia:

A common slang term used when two people say the same thing at the same time

Now, aparently, the first one to say jinx steels the others voice so they can't talk until its given back.

 

[steptoe]

BS7671 on its own is non statutory,

building regs state that electrical installations must comply with 7671 or equivalent.

building regs ARE statutory

as for requiring an RCD as front end protection on TT(this is now drifting away from the voltage trip)

our install starts from the consumers side of the meter, if (IMO) we now install an ISO we should be ensuring that it is compliant with the regs regarding TT and protection to property.

a normal ISO is simply that, a switch, that offers NO protection whatsoever.

if the DNO decide to install an ISO inbuilt to their meter then this just makes our job of being able to bring existing installs up to the current regs.

 

[steptoe]

I would have to agree with sparkytim on that one too Steptoe. Now dont get me wrong on this, i always appreciaete your input to threads mate ,but you seem to be a bit shaky in your advice on the issues raised in this one. I look at it from a PIR point of veiw and whether or not the opinion stated would be a fair assesment, remember you will be classing installations as unsatisfactory, based on your views expressed here, therefore you would have to justify your claims to the Client....but as you have stated earlier, each to their own interpretation...thats no problem !

its NOT a PIR though is it,?

PIR is simply a non compliance,

if you are actually working on the installation then you must ensure the work you do complies,

have a voltage trip frontend does not allow your circuit to comply, IMO

 

[m4tty]

Thanks for all the imput guys the old voltage operated trip has been replaced with henly blocks so all good. cheers