More than 1 circuit on mcb

[Wardy83]

Hi, recently carried out an eicr at a rented property. There were 5x 1mm in a 6amp mcb for lighting.. my question is what code should I be looking at for this??
I am sure I have heard someone mention or read somewhere about overpopulating an mcb should be a code 2... but then i have also heard it’s all counted as 1x circuit so all the lights to the property are on 1x circuit.. which would be a code 3 recommendation they should be split.. advice would be welcomed.

cheers

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Not in a scam, just created a new circuit extended an existing circuit, lets jam another in the existing one extend it from the outgoing terminals of the protective device. lol

Sometimes you just gotta get the job done

 

[telectrix]

Not in a scam, just created a new circuit lets jam another in the existing one. lol

could be worse. extra circuits jammed into incoming 25mm tails. seen that before.

 

[Norah Nabino]

This sounds like a wrong way of arranging circuits.
Question is ,what is the reason for wiring it in such unconventional manner?
It looks like a DIY job.
If I am the one on that site I would re arrange it straight away.

 

[netblindpaul]

BS 7671 definition...

 

[Teddy Lop]

could be worse. extra circuits jammed into incoming 25mm tails. seen that before.

According to ADT this is an approved connection method for alarms I'll have you know! So long as you use alarm cable sheaf on the cpc for a proper job.

Anyway I've code 2'd before now if conductors are not all securely connected which is nigh on impossible with 5

 

[ipf]

A RFC with 5 in a CB would worry me more.....certainly when it came to testing.
Still one circuit, though.
As previously stated, whatever the circuit, the N's and E's could cause problems.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Isn't that what needle nose pliers are for.

 

[littlespark]

Isn't that what needle nose pliers are for.

thought that was for pickin' me nose?

 

[DPG]

This sounds like a wrong way of arranging circuits.
Question is ,what is the reason for wiring it in such unconventional manner?
It looks like a DIY job.
If I am the one on that site I would re arrange it straight away.

You can only rearrange it if there are unused ways in the consumer unit. Which there probably won't be, otherwise they would have been used for the extra sockets or whatever.

 

[radiohead]

This sounds like a wrong way of arranging circuits.
Question is ,what is the reason for wiring it in such unconventional manner?
It looks like a DIY job.
If I am the one on that site I would re arrange it straight away.

Nobody is ever going to suggest the original scenario is the best way of going about things, but the OP's original question must be kept in mind. An EICR is being carried out, so the question has to be is five conductors in a single device compliant? Yes on its own, so no code, other factors such as adequacy of termination may mean it is not compliant, but that is an entirely separate issue whch woulld be coded for different reasons.
The issue of all the lighting being on one circuit is irrelevant if other circuits, such as power circuits will remain energised on failure of the lighting circuit. Division of circuits will be achieved. There is no requirement for more than one lighting circuit within an installation. No code for that either. I would however note both of the above, stating whilst compliant there are significant disadvantages (with an explanation) to the present arrangement which could be improved.
Those carrying out EICR's must remember ONLY non compliances can be coded, not personal preferences.