L
londonlec
Its perfectly compliant.
I wish someone would come and put a new boiler in for me, for free.
I wish someone would come and put a new boiler in for me, for free.
-
Please use style selector to select BLUE AND WHITE. If you are not already on it. This notice will go once you're on the correct style.
C/H supply - spurred or dedicated cct?
C
Carter
Well apart from sec.314 that is.
I wish someone would come and put a new boiler in for me, for free.
This is more about a landlord's (social or otherwise) legal obligations and a prudent business policy's rolling maintenance/improvement program and after 35 odd years of tax paying I think she's deserved it.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
Spudnik
I agree Mr C.
I now see that the installer has spurred from an outlet which has a 13A switched spur controlling it.
Well, personally, i cannot see anything wrong, apart from the fact that if the washing machine trips, it will take the CH with it.
This i cant see as being a hazard, electrically.
The key words we have to look at are "shall" and "minimise".
"Shall" is not "must" and "minimise" is not "remove completely"
Not ideal, but not a hazard.
All IMHO.
I now see that the installer has spurred from an outlet which has a 13A switched spur controlling it.
Well, personally, i cannot see anything wrong, apart from the fact that if the washing machine trips, it will take the CH with it.
This i cant see as being a hazard, electrically.
The key words we have to look at are "shall" and "minimise".
"Shall" is not "must" and "minimise" is not "remove completely"
Not ideal, but not a hazard.
All IMHO.
C
Carter
Not quite Jason, he hasn't spurred off the washing machine socket outlet, he's spurred off the feed side of the sw/spur that controls it and that feed is part of the kitchen ring.
...apart from the fact that if the... which kinda makes my point; from a design point of view it shows a disregard for the functionality of the installation and the convenience (and in some circumstances the health) of the end user. It wouldn't pass muster in a commercial or industrial situation would it? In fact if it appeared on one of the engineer's/architect's dis-board schedules or drawings it'd be an open invitation to gather round, point and laugh!
Well not an electrical hazard per se granted that it isn't going to immediately explode in a ball of flame and sparks and subject to the various degrees of 'hazard' that can be defined but that's not the issue I'm raising. I'm saying at most that it's a hazard of an electrical nature in as much as it involoves an electrical system and the design thereof.
Well actually it is. In any fair reading and particularly in regard to legal interpretations, the word "shall" is imperative, there is no conditional or optional element implied at all. The authors of BS7671 seem to have adopted the American grammatical habit of freely interchanging "will" and "shall" without regard as to whether they are speaking in the first, second or third person.
My Webster's gives its definitions as...
Which seems pretty unequivocal; number 4 merely demonstrates its use as an interogative not a conditional.
True, they're completely different objectives and I'm not trying to conflate the two, the only way to completely remove the electrical risk from a dwelling is to pull the service fuse. I contend that (where facility allows) not installing a seperate circuit for a dwelling's heating/hot water system actually does the opposite to minimising inconvenience, it in fact increases the potential for serously inconveniencing the end user so therefore falls foul of 314.
And I know what you're saying but it comes down to two things here, an assessment of the scope of the word 'hazard' and whether sec. 314 applies or not and if not... why not?
Cheers fellahs, your input much appreciated because I've yet to get the definitaive answer on this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Got to say that you really are barking up the wrong tree here. If they had spurred off the switched side of the spur for the W/M that would have been foolish but seems as though they have just spurred off the ring circuit.....Really cant see a problem
C
Carter
OK; but why?
Obviously so, but presumably your argument against them doing that would be not only the incompatability of the 13A cartridge fuse in the spur with the combi's 0.5mm sq supply flex but also the fact that to isolate the combi would also put another piece of equipment out of action. Yes?
Except its departure from the spirit and letter of sec.314. So please someone, tell me how this arrangement satisfies this requirement.
G
giio
sometimes you just need to let go of something
C
Carter
Phew. Thank goodness, that's cleared that one up then!
Seriously? That's the best answer? I thought we were logical people, dealing with facts 'n such?
Some things there are no 100% correct / incorrect answers for, you just have to make your own mind up, either way if it is fused correctly nobody will be in danger,,
We have probably all seen lights spurred off a ring if its difficult to get to a lighting circuit, is it correct, maybe maybe not, is it dangerous? not if its fused correctly.
Really think you need to make your own mind up
We have probably all seen lights spurred off a ring if its difficult to get to a lighting circuit, is it correct, maybe maybe not, is it dangerous? not if its fused correctly.
Really think you need to make your own mind up
G
giio
I wasn't being funny, but sometimes we get a bee in our bonnet about someone or something and our minds blow it out of all proportion, it takes over our logic.
I feel that if it's safe and unlikely to cause a problem in the future ,make your judgement and move on,you're probably the only one getting stressed about it, "don't sweat the small stuff" move on to more important things like "what are you having on your sandwiches tomorrow"
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Carter
Thanks for the reply Sparks; but I thought I'd illustrated that the danger of the practice isn't particularly one of overload faults, providing as you say that the C/H spur is suitably fused down. We're not just obliged to consider the minimisation of direct risk from electrical faults (shock, fire etc) but also the minimisation of inconvenience and have regard in the design stage for the conditions of use. The danger in this case arises when an elderly person might be left with no means of winter heating in the event of a fault on the ring.
True, but they are usually providing auxilliary lighting functions such as garden/patio lights, shed outhouses an so on never a dwelling's main lighting. In my experience it's never impossible to access the correct circuit, as you say it's about degrees of difficulty which on the ground translates into how conscientious, creative or lazy the installer is in finding his wiring route and how much a customer can afford.
In this instance there was minimal extra work involved for the installer, he just couldn't be bothered to do it right so the regs are put to one side for the sake of his expediency/profit and that sort of attitude really grips my ****.
That's comparing apples and pears really. The example you cite (sundry light dogged into power cct) isn't going to massively affect someone's life if it goes south, unnecessarily losing your only source of heat and hot water certainly will and in some circumstances seriously so.
Well so far nothing I've read has made me moderate my objection to it and I'm still wanting to know why sec.314 doesn't apply here or can be applied selectively. ??
Last edited by a moderator:
The Regs as we know are not a statutory document and though it can be used in a court of law to confirm guilt or innocence it is still open to interpretation.
I have been asked about 6 times in both a domestic and industrial situation to look at a situation where the loss of a supply and also a shock incident occured if blame could be apportioned to the installer. Everyone of these incidents resulted in a non prosecution as it would have be tremdously difficult to apportion blame.
While I commend your stance on this, you are going to have to step back and see what the result of this installation will be. Correctly you say that if a fault developed on the washing machine it will take off the CH boiler that controls your Aunt's heating. But can you say that in regulation 314.2 that the consequences would be dire, inconvinient yes, but not dire.
Could we say that a cooker/ hob that was electrical should not be on an RCD where a socket can trip them, as the very loss of cooking can also be life threatening. You can have a microwave. oven to get by on, the same as you could have a couple of fan heaters to get by on, before someone can come out and rectify the problem.
As for the other sections of the regulations 314, again how far would you reasonably go to minimise inconvenience, it would be far better to have an installation with perhaps 10-12 mini DNO heads each feeding an individual single way board, that feeds individual circuits within the house.
Yes there is a logical reason to have a boiler on it's own circuit, but often many considerations have to be taken into account, There are no regluations insisting on this and so it is not therefore compulsory to do so. Thre bottom line to this is if the boiler did trip due to a fault on the ring final, could you envisage winning a compensation claim by citing regulations 314 .............I doubt that very much.
I have been asked about 6 times in both a domestic and industrial situation to look at a situation where the loss of a supply and also a shock incident occured if blame could be apportioned to the installer. Everyone of these incidents resulted in a non prosecution as it would have be tremdously difficult to apportion blame.
While I commend your stance on this, you are going to have to step back and see what the result of this installation will be. Correctly you say that if a fault developed on the washing machine it will take off the CH boiler that controls your Aunt's heating. But can you say that in regulation 314.2 that the consequences would be dire, inconvinient yes, but not dire.
Could we say that a cooker/ hob that was electrical should not be on an RCD where a socket can trip them, as the very loss of cooking can also be life threatening. You can have a microwave. oven to get by on, the same as you could have a couple of fan heaters to get by on, before someone can come out and rectify the problem.
As for the other sections of the regulations 314, again how far would you reasonably go to minimise inconvenience, it would be far better to have an installation with perhaps 10-12 mini DNO heads each feeding an individual single way board, that feeds individual circuits within the house.
Yes there is a logical reason to have a boiler on it's own circuit, but often many considerations have to be taken into account, There are no regluations insisting on this and so it is not therefore compulsory to do so. Thre bottom line to this is if the boiler did trip due to a fault on the ring final, could you envisage winning a compensation claim by citing regulations 314 .............I doubt that very much.
C
Carter
Nice one Malcolm, we're getting closer...
Dunno so much about that, the wording of 314 is pretty unequivocal. Can't see much 'wiggle room' there.
Difficult to comment without knowing the circumstances but point taken.
There is no qualitative guidance given in 314.2 advising on degrees of 'direness' but I suppose if you're 80yrs old, frail, living alone and cut off by snow then I'd say yes the consequences could and would be extremely dire. If you examine the wording as I'm sure you have, it states;
"Seperate circuits SHALL be provided for parts of the installation which need to be seperately controlled..." - In my opininon a dwelling's whole heating and hot water system amply deserves its status as a principal circuit and therefore requires seperate control.
"...in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits..." - which it undoubtedly will be in its current state therefore it fails here.
"...and due account SHALL be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device." - Which is what they've failed to do here. Just can't see how they could possibly wangle a compliance out of that lot unless they're demoting the status of a whole heating/HW system to the equivalence of a bell Xformer?
No of course we couldn't because the risk of shock from having a big lump of electrified metal in your kitchen is more immediately life threatening than a simple malfunction or overload and so that is the risk that must be given precedence.
All of which assume prior ownership. Not an assumption I think is valid, crikey I don't think we've even got one in the house/loft/garage now I think about it!
Coupla metres of cable and a length of MT4? Spare breaker in the board just waiting to receive it? Doesn't seem too onerous to me and well within the scope of work that's reasonably expected of someone who professeses to be an installer of central heating systems.
It's called a consumer unit isn't it?
several very good ones in fact
the idleness and convenience of the sub-contractor isn't one of them though is it?
Even though that's exactly what the wording and intention of sec. 314 requires?
No "if" about it is there? if the ring goes down so does the heating and H/W.
Well that's a different bucket of whelks altogether, can open, worms all over the gaff!
Dunno so much about that, the wording of 314 is pretty unequivocal. Can't see much 'wiggle room' there.
Difficult to comment without knowing the circumstances but point taken.
There is no qualitative guidance given in 314.2 advising on degrees of 'direness' but I suppose if you're 80yrs old, frail, living alone and cut off by snow then I'd say yes the consequences could and would be extremely dire. If you examine the wording as I'm sure you have, it states;
"Seperate circuits SHALL be provided for parts of the installation which need to be seperately controlled..." - In my opininon a dwelling's whole heating and hot water system amply deserves its status as a principal circuit and therefore requires seperate control.
"...in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits..." - which it undoubtedly will be in its current state therefore it fails here.
"...and due account SHALL be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device." - Which is what they've failed to do here. Just can't see how they could possibly wangle a compliance out of that lot unless they're demoting the status of a whole heating/HW system to the equivalence of a bell Xformer?
No of course we couldn't because the risk of shock from having a big lump of electrified metal in your kitchen is more immediately life threatening than a simple malfunction or overload and so that is the risk that must be given precedence.
All of which assume prior ownership. Not an assumption I think is valid, crikey I don't think we've even got one in the house/loft/garage now I think about it!
Coupla metres of cable and a length of MT4? Spare breaker in the board just waiting to receive it? Doesn't seem too onerous to me and well within the scope of work that's reasonably expected of someone who professeses to be an installer of central heating systems.
It's called a consumer unit isn't it?
several very good ones in fact
the idleness and convenience of the sub-contractor isn't one of them though is it?
Even though that's exactly what the wording and intention of sec. 314 requires?
No "if" about it is there? if the ring goes down so does the heating and H/W.
Well that's a different bucket of whelks altogether, can open, worms all over the gaff!
Unfortunately the IET and the rest of the electrical industry do not share your interpretation of regulations 314 .................if the IET considered a boiler to be in the same category as a fire alarm then it would be included in the safety services section and the requirements of additional back up systems ie battery for one, would be warrented.
I'm sorry you can bat this around all day, but the bottom line is that a CH boiler under any circumstances does not evoke regulation 314.2 and I think I'm about the 4 or 5 th poster that disagrees with you, but of course if you wish there is nothing stopping you in running your aunts boiler with a new supply, and any consquent boiler the same. You would be within the regulations to do so.
I'm sorry you can bat this around all day, but the bottom line is that a CH boiler under any circumstances does not evoke regulation 314.2 and I think I'm about the 4 or 5 th poster that disagrees with you, but of course if you wish there is nothing stopping you in running your aunts boiler with a new supply, and any consquent boiler the same. You would be within the regulations to do so.
Carter,I fail see your interpretation of the regs, to fit the circumstances, has much if any support thus far
Even the most stalwart of proposers of a view should/must ( that was a deliberate choice of words) take into account those alternative interpretations, even though they oppose your own,simply because of that overwhelming opposition that you face
Obviously you are not wrong that a seperate circuit for c/h is an improvement on a non seperate circuit
Whether that improvemnet is required or necessary is an issue you alone "or in a minority" see as of importance
Even the most stalwart of proposers of a view should/must ( that was a deliberate choice of words
) take into account those alternative interpretations, even though they oppose your own,simply because of that overwhelming opposition that you faceObviously you are not wrong that a seperate circuit for c/h is an improvement on a non seperate circuit
Whether that improvemnet is required or necessary is an issue you alone "or in a minority" see as of importance
Hi everyone,
If...
OFFICIAL SPONSORS
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
