Boiler fed off lighting circuit

[Octopus]

I suppose it's another case of the regs being open to interpretation

Just think about the fact that the regs are not retrospective - so if its on the lighting circuit, and has been that way then its OK, poor IMHO but OK.

If you're installing new then the regs need to be applied as they are now written.

Tin hat on!

 

[kingeri]

Just think about the fact that the regs are not retrospective - so if its on the lighting circuit, and has been that way then its OK, poor IMHO but OK.

If you're installing new then the regs need to be applied as they are now written.

Tin hat on!

You're totally right, but the boiler has been added to the 1mm lighting circuit recently, cable is brown/blue date stamped 2011, joined on to old 1998 lighting cable. Hence, whoever did it didn't comply with the 17th! As far as I can see......

Radiation suit on!

 

[ben sparkz]

so let me get this straight, if I go to test an installation wirered in say... 2001 can it be tested retrospectively? i.e not worry about all circuits buried in wall (without mech protection) being on an rcd and simply advise the client to have this done to comply with 17th edition but still pass the installion (providing everything is above board)???

- - - Updated - - -

so let me get this straight, if I go to test an installation wirered in say... 2001 can it be tested retrospectively? i.e not worry about all circuits buried in wall (without mech protection) being on an rcd and simply advise the client to have this done to comply with 17th edition but still pass the installion (providing everything is above board)???

 

[kingeri]

so let me get this straight, if I go to test an installation wirered in say... 2001 can it be tested retrospectively? i.e not worry about all circuits buried in wall (without mech protection) being on an rcd and simply advise the client to have this done to comply with 17th edition but still pass the installion (providing everything is above board)???

- - - Updated - - -

so let me get this straight, if I go to test an installation wirered in say... 2001 can it be tested retrospectively? i.e not worry about all circuits buried in wall (without mech protection) being on an rcd and simply advise the client to have this done to comply with 17th edition but still pass the installion (providing everything is above board)???

On an EICR anything you find that is non-compliant with the current regs but not especially dangerous should receive a C3, hence you are illustrating that you've identified it as an area that ideally should be improved. An EICR doesn't have a 'pass' or 'fail' as such.....you are just collecting and documenting the facts of what you find. Any C1 or C2s are obviously unsatisfactory and require immediate or at least relatively quick attention.

- - - Updated - - -

so let me get this straight, if I go to test an installation wirered in say... 2001 can it be tested retrospectively? i.e not worry about all circuits buried in wall (without mech protection) being on an rcd and simply advise the client to have this done to comply with 17th edition but still pass the installion (providing everything is above board)???

- - - Updated - - -

so let me get this straight, if I go to test an installation wirered in say... 2001 can it be tested retrospectively? i.e not worry about all circuits buried in wall (without mech protection) being on an rcd and simply advise the client to have this done to comply with 17th edition but still pass the installion (providing everything is above board)???

On an EICR anything you find that is non-compliant with the current regs but not especially dangerous should receive a C3, hence you are illustrating that you've identified it as an area that ideally should be improved. An EICR doesn't have a 'pass' or 'fail' as such.....you are just collecting and documenting the facts of what you find. Any C1 or C2s are obviously unsatisfactory and require immediate or at least relatively quick attention.

 

[kingeri]

If doing an EICR then anything non-compliant with the current regs but not presenting a significant danger should receive a C3, hence it should be improved at some point but it is ok for continued service.

 

[p.mcc7]

Would you beleive it..
I saw a shaver point today spurred off a lighting circuit, so I gave it a C1 :rofl: :rofl:

That right shaver sockets are from the lighting 10amp max were did you get your quals on a coco pops box

 

[somersetsparks]

Going back to the OP, the main issue I can see with running a boiler off lighting, in this case at least, is that power circuits now need to be a minimum of 1.5mm, in this case the lighting circuit was 1mm.

Oops I'm gonna lose some sleep about all those doorbell transformers I wired in 1mm now!
Surely power relates to sockets?
A circuit supplying a fixed load needs to be adequate for that surely,

I don't even bother reading all those reccomendations, let common sense prevail.

A boiler off of a lighting circuit is A ok in my book

 

[kingeri]

Oops I'm gonna lose some sleep about all those doorbell transformers I wired in 1mm now!
Surely power relates to sockets?
A circuit supplying a fixed load needs to be adequate for that surely,

I don't even bother reading all those reccomendations, let common sense prevail.

A boiler off of a lighting circuit is A ok in my book

I was just continuing the debate....sorry I spoke

 

[Silly Sausage]

Oops I'm gonna lose some sleep about all those doorbell transformers I wired in 1mm now!
Surely power relates to sockets?
A circuit supplying a fixed load needs to be adequate for that surely,

I don't even bother reading all those reccomendations, let common sense prevail.

A boiler off of a lighting circuit is A ok in my book

What is a power circuit anyway that requires 1.0mil cable?
I notice the conspicuous absence of the definition of 'Power circuit' in Ch 2!

Regs, vague as ever.

 

[somersetsparks]

I was just continuing the debate....sorry I spoke

haha soz, i've dismounted my high horse now!