conservatory I & T

[telectrix]

hi, this morning went to test and inspect a conservatory installation. recently done. explained to client that i could not sign off an EIC as i didn't design or install it. all i could do was to report on the installation as i found it ( thinking PIR ). what i have found is.

extension to kitchen ring final feeding 4 DS/O. RCD protected in split board ( 16th Ed. )

10 GU10 downlights fed from d/s lighting, no RCD

12 ELV LED's fed from a single transformer.

Faults/ deviations:

1. no grommets in S/O back boxes
2. ring final between 2 S/O's chased in behind skirting board ( non safe zone )
3. kingspan insulation tight around GU10's ( non fire rated )
4. cpc's cut off on GU10's so unable to read Zs. ( GU10's are class 2 )
5. transformer and any JB's are inaccessible without cutting out ceiling

client has agreed cost for fitting RCD kit in CU to bring up to full RCD protection. and to cut back the kingspan and buy a set of LED GU10's.

Zs readings on S/O 's good at 0.7ohms. IR readings >99M.

just think that have to do PIR, but unsure what code for 2 and 4 above. i would give 1 and 5 a code 4.

any thoughts lads?

 

[pushrod]

IMO FWIW

With No 2 i would code that as 2. Although you have effectively taken care of it, or will be, by installing an rcd.
With No 4 if you are unable to prove an effective earth at the fittings then i would go with a 2 again.

 

[telectrix]

my confusion is that the fittings are class 2 and don't need cpc. it's the fact that the cable doesn't have continuous cpc.

 

[pushrod]

my confusion is that the fittings are class 2 and don't need cpc. it's the fact that the cable doesn't have continuous cpc.

Sorry that's what i meant - not being able to prove earth for cable.

 

[IQ Electrical]

There should be a cpc terminated at the accessory/luminaire 412.2.3.2, is it a safety risk or a non-conformity?

I'd say the latter and code 4.

 

[telectrix]

IQ, i can't see a safety issue with it. it might just be that the cpc's are connected through in JB's but can't access due to kingspan above ceiling. i have pencilled in a code 4. malcolm has sent me a pm, suggesting a code 4 as well. i think fitting the RCD is the biggest issue as the install was done supposedly to 17th.

 

[pushrod]

But if it had been wired in 2 core would that still be a code 4 ? If you can't test the cpc you can't prove it's continuity especially as the JBs are inaccessible. (tin hat on lol)

 

[IQ Electrical]

But if it had been wired in 2 core would that still be a code 4 ? If you can't test the cpc you can't prove it's continuity especially as the JBs are inaccessible. (tin hat on lol)

Take the tin hat off! Lol

It's a valid point but seeing as the cpc is there to take account of the possible replacement by the user of class II equipment by class I equipment, does a danger exist in the installation in it's present form?

 

[telectrix]

agree. if the fitting don't need a cpc, then why should the cable have a cpc. i,m going to give it CODE 4. same with the grommets and the cable behind skirting board. the numpty has also used those stupid flat plate sockets which are "designed" to stick out proud as they are too deep for 25mm back boxes.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Personally Tel I would not code the grommits. If there is no damage to the sheath and therefore it would not contravene reg 522.8.1.

Grommits are good practice but not compulsory.

 

[telectrix]

Personally Tel I would not code the grommits. If there is no damage to the sheath and therefore it would not contravene reg 522.8.1.

Grommits are good practice but not compulsory.

point taken , malc. don't want to pull it down too much as client has other work for me.

 

[pushrod]

Take the tin hat off! Lol

It's a valid point but seeing as the cpc is there to take account of the possible replacement by the user of class II equipment by class I equipment, does a danger exist in the installation in it's present form?

Well once the full upgrade on the rcd protection is done i would agree, but if it was not rcd protected at the time of the PIR then would think there was more likely to be a risk.

 

[telectrix]

i,m going to fit the RCD wednesday and will do the pir after it's in. readinds so far are on the back of a smoke packet so i don't lose 'em.

 

[pushrod]

i,m going to fit the RCD wednesday and will do the pir after it's in. readinds so far are on the back of a smoke packet so i don't lose 'em.

Thought the PIR was already done -DOH!