C2 for no isolater before CU

[oldtimer]

Yet again someone is trying to apply the regs on new installations to an old installation but we know you cannot backdate them if this was the case every property would fail for not having a main isolator and RCD protection. Of course it could be that they were trying to create work for themselves as lets face it there is so much urban myth around I&T plus ISI&TEE (PAT) its just makes us all look bad

 

[plugsandsparks]

I think thats where it falls down and can be a grey area, so many people throw additional boards in and all will say MAIN SWITCH so the untrained person may assume. Whereby many get away with just using a henley in a domestic a comm/ind site has to be viewed with an HSE hat on.
Agree with spin, it has to be a judgement call at the time as to what your confronted with and what information is visable with regards to isolation for the untrained persons.

I think thats a fair point. It really is a sad installation, however where he is recommending the isolators offers absoluetly no value. What it really needs is ONE big isolater for the whole site (marked up as MAin Isolater) that is what i would do.
That way if there was a fire or flood, then instead of trying to work out what is feeding what, you just turn off the big one.

 

[Guest55]

Were code 2 defects assigned to all the CU's in regards to isolation ?
or just db2 thats fed from db1 ?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Yet again someone is trying to apply the regs on new installations to an old installation but we know you cannot backdate them if this was the case every property would fail for not having a main isolator and RCD protection. Of course it could be that they were trying to create work for themselves as lets face it there is so much urban myth around I&T plus ISI&TEE (PAT) its just makes us all look bad

I'm not certain that that is the case.
There were requirements for a main switch in the 14th edition.
Where there wer two sets of consumer terminals such as with an on peak and off peak supply, the two were treated as separate installations.
Where an installation was split up into separate parts perhaps for safety services then they als o were considered to be separate installations.
However if the installation was deemed as being one installation, then one main switch was required.

 

[oldtimer]

I'm not certain that that is the case.
There were requirements for a main switch in the 14th edition.
Where there wer two sets of consumer terminals such as with an on peak and off peak supply, the two were treated as separate installations.
Where an installation was split up into separate parts perhaps for safety services then they als o were considered to be separate installations.
However if the installation was deemed as being one installation, then one main switch was required.

Yep and when did you last see a isolator fitted during the 14th edition as said before the ESC said last month the were dissapointed that the government refused to have isolators built in to the new smart meters because it would be an extra cost burden on business or in other words the DNO and Meter companies have a bigger lobby than the ESC and lets face it it would cost about £10 to fit an isolator when replacing the head end or the meter but as we know that aint going to happen unless you the customer pays for this.

Funny thing is a friend was getting a new supply cable head end and meter installed and they did fit a stand alone isolator but this was in social housing .

Also referenced the above in the Switched On Mag issue 25

 

[plugsandsparks]

Were code 2 defects assigned to all the CU's in regards to isolation ?
or just db2 thats fed from db1 ?

Actually no. On one site this applies to 2 DBs that are on the floor above the incoming supply, they are literally less than 2metres from the head but there is a floor between.
On another site the C2 refers to both main supply DB and a sub DB off the main.
i.e. he is wanting to see isolaters just BEFORE the Dbs in both cases.

 

[plugsandsparks]

If i go ahead with remedials will take some pics, as mentioned its not pretty and i dont blame the tester "not liking what he saw"

 

[Guest55]

Actually no. On one site this applies to 2 DBs that are on the floor above the incoming supply, they are literally less than 2metres from the head but there is a floor between.
On another site the C2 refers to both main supply DB and a sub DB off the main.
i.e. he is wanting to see isolaters just BEFORE the Dbs in both cases.

well if the 2 DB's on the floor above are supplied directly from the service fuse ( henly blocks ) then he may have a point.

but the sub DB doesnt require a pre-isolator when its supplied from the first DB , which will have its own main switch built in anyway.
yes , we need pics

 

[plugsandsparks]

I would probably sympathise except remedials state the isolater needs to be just before DBs in floor above not adjacent to service fuse.
Another weird one is that the service fuse DNO type is then hooked into a piece of 10mmsq T&E which then goes to the meter in the floor above and then out to the DB.
What a bizarre arrangment i think at sometime the supply must have been downstairs and someone moved it upstairs including the meter cannot see DNO using T&E between floors to fit a meter there (perhaps a rental separation or something).
I will ask them how many bills they get as its looks like at least two incoming supplies

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Did the inspector not code the T&E?

 

[plugsandsparks]

sort of. C2 but down to poor termination and incomplete sleaving on earth strands. EICR states that the T&E should be terminated through a junction box.

TBH when i looked at it i did not like the whole thing. If there are two supplies i would recommend they ditch one and connect these two dBS however they are arranged (i dont have the EICR cct schedules) to the main incoming via an isolater of some type and scrap the T&E for some proper DI tails. Its only a couple of meters.
The more i think about it, the more i am thinking of re-designing the whole incoming sorry saga. I am still thinking of a "super" isolater for the whole site, if you could see it you would be shaking your head.
I still think they were being too kind in some respects, but the isolaters before the CU just threw me and perhaps distracted me from thinking about a proper solution.

 

[Engineer54]

I think thats where it falls down and can be a grey area, so many people throw additional boards in and all will say MAIN SWITCH so the untrained person may assume. Whereby many get away with just using a henley in a domestic a comm/ind site has to be viewed with an HSE hat on.
Agree with spin, it has to be a judgement call at the time as to what your confronted with and what information is visable with regards to isolation for the untrained persons.

Spin has nailed it for you in his last post!! One other thing to remember, is that any tails from a service cut-out over 3 metres, will require a switch fuse...

 

[Risteard]

The Regulations require that every installation has a main linked switch as near as practicable to the origin of the installation Regulation 537.1.4.
As for it being a code C2, that's for the inspector to decide.

And then the Guidance Notes suggest that separate DBs may amount to separate installations.