Need a regulation no.

[Sidewinder]

OK guys,

I have a flat twin & cpc sub-main installed within a building.

The cpc is cut off @ both ends & this floating.

A separate cpc has been run between both ends, not exactly the same route, but almost.

I don't like this, but, to comment on it I need a regulation number & I have failed so far to find one.

I am having a bad afternoon.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a reg number please?

 

[Essex1]

As long as everything is within testing limits I can't see an issue TBH. 

 

[Andy™]

exposed conductive part, since its only single insulated between it and the live conductors?

 

[Sidewinder]

I can see your point Essex.

It is, but it's one of my pet hates, why do it!

It was unnecessary when the job was installed, it could have been done right, not "bodged", I could use 134.1 I suppose.

What concerns me a little thinking about it is I don't know the route of the cable between the ends I can access, it starts in the meter enclosure and turns up on an inside wall of a house.

It's not buried direct, I don't believe, as that was not the modus operandi of the installers, as it would not have been customer requirements, the time taken to bury it and install it "pukka" would have been prohibitive.

It could be in the cavity, most likely, but, as I say doubtful but, it could be buried.

As I can't just use my personal opinion on what is rough and what isn't rough, then I need to put a reg against it.

Still open to suggestions if anyone would care to throw their hat into the ring as it were please.

 

[Essex1]

The only thing I can think of would be 'workmanship'. Don't have book. Sorry. 

 

[Andy™]

is the earth the correct size for how its installed?

 

[Sidewinder]

The only thing I can think of would be 'workmanship'. Don't have book. Sorry. 

Thanks Essex, I don't have a book either, I have to struggle with that stupid thing that the IET call their Electrical Standards Plus!!!

Workmanship is 134.1 btw, it's a good one to memorise as it is a bit of a catch all, but it is also a bit of a cop out IYKWIM.

is the earth the correct size for how its installed?

Yeah Andy it's the same size as the live conductors, 10 or 16mm sq IIRC.

I'd have to check my notes.

The installer may have ignored the reduced size cpc in the flat twin/cpc cable because they "thought" it was inadequate, but, it isn't, like the running a G/Y with an SWA instead of using the armour etc. one of those urban myths, perpetuated by those who can't really design things correctly.

 

[Rob_the_rich]

543.6.1 "where overcurrent protective devices are used for fault protection, the protective conductor shall be incorporated in the same wiring system as the live conductors or in their immediate vicinity."

Honest, it fell open at that page.

 

[Andy™]

543.6.1 "where overcurrent protective devices are used for fault protection, the protective conductor shall be incorporated in the same wiring system as the live conductors or in their immediate vicinity."

Honest, it fell open at that page.

i think that is the one we were all looking for

 

[Sidewinder]

543.6.1 "where overcurrent protective devices are used for fault protection, the protective conductor shall be incorporated in the same wiring system as the live conductors or in their immediate vicinity."

Honest, it fell open at that page.

Thanks Rob, scoobed you for that, not a reg that immediately springs to mind, but a good one to remember, or, have the book fall open to!

Yeah right, saddo!

 

[Rob_the_rich]

I thought that an answered question post stayed in the thread? it seems it just goes to post 2.

Sad-turday night with the reg book again.

 

[Andy™]

I thought that an answered question post stayed in the thread? it seems it just goes to post 2.

Sad-turday night with the reg book again.

it does show in the correct place if you change to sort by date, but annoyingly, that is not the default setting

Andy beat me to it

not guilty, rob_the_rich came up with the reg

 

[ProDave]

If this is for an EICR you are not expected to inspect hidden cables, so if you just suspect it's route deviates but cannot see it to prove or disprove it, you should assume it is okay?

No different to having a gut feeling a cable buried in a plaster wall is not in a safe zone but you can't see it to prove that suspicion.

On that basis a C3 for me.

 

[Sidewinder]

ES+ is not good still.

My issue was I could not think what to search for.

I had tried a few things and got nowt.

I voted Rob's answer as "the answer" and it's now moved out of sync and to post 2 in the thread, that's not really good?

 

[Sidewinder]

Just like the cable install I was looking for a reg. no. to code.

I don't like the way the software moves the post out of sync either!

 

[Rob_the_rich]

Just like the cable install I was looking for a reg. no. to code.

I don't like the way the software moves the post out of sync either!

I think originally a copy of the preferred post was to go to post 2, it has never worked, perhaps something to do with how the voting system was disabled?

 

[Essex1]

543.6.1 "where overcurrent protective devices are used for fault protection, the protective conductor shall be incorporated in the same wiring system as the live conductors or in their immediate vicinity."

Honest, it fell open at that page.

Great find but the cpc is within the vicinity. 

 

[Sidewinder]

Great find but the cpc is within the vicinity. 

Yes it is Essex, you have a point, it is within the vicinity, but, what is defined as the immediate vicinity?

It is very close @ either end where it can be seen but where it goes between, no one knows, & it can't be seen without intrusive dismantling of the walls of the property, or, removal of the cable to see if it is for example cable tied, or taped to the current carrying cable.

To me immediate vicinity would be in contact with the cable carrying the current throughout its whole length.

This can't be verified, it can be assumed, but I don't like that.

I wanted to code it FI as I didn't like the idea, but, without a reg no. I couldn't.

Now I will, &, I think that the judgement will stand up to scrutiny due to the unknown factors, and the lack of records for the install.

 

[ProDave]

I still want to know what your obsession is with coding something you can't see but just suspect might be wrong when normally hidden cables are excluded from an EICR?

It almost sounds as if you are searching for a reason to fail it?

 

[SLIPSHOD & SLAPDASH]

On a similar note, a question i have asked here before with no answers, When inspecting a lighting final circuit wired in twin only (no cpc)  but all switches, lights etc  are class 2  but the circuit has been extended in several places with  twin & earth should this be mentioned/coded . The earth is floating.