borrowed neutral

[telectrix]

you got it all wrong mate. God was/is a plumber. that's why the world is in such a mess.

 

[Kamikaze]

We could both be right there, maybe he is semi skilled in both trades. :sad_smile:

 

[telectrix]

how can you trust somebody that created a world that was round , but had 4 corners. now that's got to be a joiner.

 

[PC Electrics]

It does not comply with the regs plain and simple.

And the idea of a forum is to freely discuss and air views, if you don't like what's being discussed go somewhere else. Or should we all wait for your final judgement as in "end of thread", onions has spoken the debate is over. lol

I think you're just being arguementative for the sake of it. Not BAS in disguise are you? It's people like you who put me off putting any effort into forums like this. Which is a shame for those who really could do with the help.
I've met scores of people like you in my previous life and the only redeeming feature they have is that they come crashing out of their ivory towers eventually.
You carry on eating regs for breakfast and in the meantime the rest of us will just get on with the work.

 

[telectrix]

couldn't have put it better myself without risking a ban. you've got 4 yes's

 

[Des 56]

oh no it isn't. at the end of the day, the customer is the one who has to pay for improvements. if he refuses, then you have to do the best you can in the circumstances. putting all the lights on 1 circuit is not ideal, but it's better left safer than what it was. some say the brb is the bible, but it's non-statutory. like the original bible. do you really believe that the earth was created in 7 days, and adam and eve just happened by the hand of God?

I smiled when I read the above
I have heard some religious claims in my time,but tels statutory bible beats them all


Q Do you believe he walked on water ?
A "No"

Crucifixion for him (statutory document and all that)

 

[telectrix]

last person i know walked on water was barry john.

 

[Des 56]

last person i know walked on water was barry john.

Yes he definitely walked on water and survived

The ironic thing is, I hear he is drowning himself in alcohol these days

By the way, Chuck Norris always walks on water

 

[andyb]

I've not posted for a while but I still read the forum regularly,

I've pasted below a question & reply from the ESC website, it sums up what 98% of the electricians think, but I don't suppose for one second it will satisfy oxocube or Ban-All-Sheds.

If you read Best Practice Guide No 6, it does say that any non compliance that would warrant a code 2 on a pir should be rectified, but if not practical or the customer refuses then after a satisfactory risk assessment the work can be undertaken with the non compliance noted in comments on the existing installation box and also a strong written recommendation made to the customer.

Q44. After replacing a consumer unit, it is found that there is a shared neutral between the upstairs and downstairs lighting circuits. Would it comply with BS 7671 if I put the lighting onto one circuit to avoid the RCD tripping?
The Electrical Safety Council’s Best Practice Guide No 6 (Consumer unit replacement in domestic premises) sets out a procedure to help avoid such foreseeable circumstances.
In any event, the shared neutral situation must be corrected to remove the electric shock hazard.
Preferably each circuit should be provided with its own neutral to satisfy Section 314.
However, where this is not practicable, the two lighting circuits sharing the neutral may be connected to a single protective device (creating a single circuit), provided that the circuit is suitable for the connected load.
Regulation number(s)

• 314

 

[oxocube]

If you read Best Practice Guide No 6, it does say that any non compliance that would warrant a code 2 on a pir should be rectified, but if not practical or the customer refuses then after a satisfactory risk assessment the work can be undertaken with the non compliance noted in comments on the existing installation box and also a strong written recommendation made to the customer.

The Electrical Safety Council’s Best Practice Guide No 6 (Consumer unit replacement in domestic premises) sets out a procedure to help avoid such foreseeable circumstances.

And you lot ain't gonna like this, but below is the ESC procedure.

7.2. Planned change
7.2.1. The initial approach of the contractor planning the
replacement of a consumer unit should be to
encourage the customer to have a periodic
inspection and test of the installation carried out in
advance of the consumer unit being replaced.
7.2.2. If the customer refuses, a pre-work survey should be
carried out to ascertain if there are any immediate
or potential dangers, or any condition that would
cause unwanted tripping of an RCD, in the existing
installation affected by the change. As a minimum,
the survey should, include:
• making enquires with the user as to whether
there are any known defects, faults or damage,
• an internal visual inspection of the existing
consumer unit to determine, amongst other
things, the type and condition of the wiring
system used for the installation,
• an external visual inspection of other readily
accessible parts of the installation,
• a measurement of the external earth fault loop
impedance, Ze,
• a test of circuit protective conductor continuity
at the end of each final circuit, and
• an insulation resistance measurement of the
whole installation at the consumer unit, between
the live conductors connected together and the
protective conductor connected to the earthing
arrangement.
7.2.3. If any immediate danger, potential danger or
condition that would cause unwanted tripping of an
RCD is found, the customer should be informed that
remedial work is necessary to improve safety.
7.2.4. Depending on the extent, the remedial work could
involve considerable additional cost, not only in
installing new cables or accessories, but also in the
renewal of decorations, unless the customer is
willing to accept surface wiring.
7.2.5. If the customer is unable, or not prepared, to accept
either the cost or the disruption of the remedial
works, but still requires a new consumer unit to be
installed, the installer needs to carry out a risk
assessment as described in Section 8 before
agreeing to replace only the consumer unit.
7.2.6. Where cables are lead or rubber sheathed then
deterioration of the cables is likely to necessitate
rewiring when the consumer unit is replaced.

 

[andyb]

What's not to like,

Read 7.2.5

 

[Knobhead]

And you lot ain't gonna like this, but below is the ESC procedure.

7.2.4. Depending on the extent, the remedial work could
involve considerable additional cost, not only in
installing new cables or accessories, but also in the
renewal of decorations, unless the customer is
willing to accept surface wiring.
7.2.5. If the customer is unable, or not prepared, to accept
either the cost or the disruption of the remedial
works, but still requires a new consumer unit to be
installed, the installer needs to carry out a risk
assessment as described in Section 8 before
agreeing to replace only the consumer unit.

End of argument! :chillpill:

 

[oxocube]

Oh I see just ignore 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 and any other inconvenient regs.

 

[nikmet]

Seconds away,,,,,ding ding,,,,, round 2 ))

 

[IQ Electrical]

If the client won't pay for remedials, combine the lighting circuits and check the BS7671:2008 definition of a circuit.

I realise that literally millions of old ladies have fallen down the stairs as a result of this criminally dangerous practice, beaten only by the 'front end' main RCD which became synonymous with so many deaths prior to 314.1 being introduced.

As competent persons, we are expected to be able to apply the regulations and assess the risk in a given situation, that's why BS7671:2008 gives us some scope to deviate slightly as there is no 'one size fits all' in our business.

So in this situation, I'd be thinking "I've installed RCD protection to every circuit, I've removed a borrowed neutral danger and I've stayed within the client's budget"

Of course a note in the 'departures' box on the EIC (on finding a borrowed neutral, 2 lighting circuits were combined at the clients request despite advice to the contrary) should be made.