overcurrent protection

paddyscouse · Oct 2, 2014

hi can any one give me there view on what would be recorded in; the overcurrent protective device for the modified circuit on a domestic minor works cert ,for additional lights fed from a fused spur 3a witch is fed from the ring circuit ? would it be the 1362 fuse in the f sp or the 32 mcb at the c u..........

Pete999 · Oct 3, 2014

Dave, got to agree with Mr Skelton it's a modification to an existing circuit, just the sams as if you had installed a couple of extra sockets to an already existing RFC, MNWs cert for me

Badged01 · Oct 3, 2014

I've always taken it that the MEIWC is for work not encompassing a "new circuit" --- for me a "new circuit" would be a circuit being directly connected to the consumer unit.

If I'm modifying an "existing circuit" I would use the MEIWC with the "new" OCPD being recorded as the protective device for the modified circuit -- in this case the 3A FCU.

But as ever with the BGB, you can interpret it to read either way so pays your money and takes your choice ...............

davesparks · Oct 3, 2014

D Skelton said:
I'm not going to argue with you mate, if you want to define it like that then you crack on.

You better make sure however that if you want to do it your way properly, that for every fused connection unit you install within an installation you use a separate schedule of test results within your EIC. Each fused connection unit would after all be it's own sub-distribution board.

Now, what was I saying earlier? Something about 'bonkers'?

No worries, I'm not looking for an argument but I do think it's an interesting point of debate.

For the record I personally do use a minor works too, but am interested to see other peoples thoughts. But also I very rarely, if ever use a SFCU or FCU in this way, and if I do it's usually patching up some DIY efforts rather than new works.

What irritates the hell out of me is people who use this as a way to dodge out of doing proper testing and part P. I've seen a few small extensions where the existing ring has been extended and FCU's put in each room to feed the light, thus they have only altered one circuit and so part P doesn't apply.

'There you go madam I've used a trick that means you save money and don't have to have all that testing nonsense done and I don't have to worry about all that bonding etc the other guys quoted for'

Richard Burns · Oct 3, 2014

If you have an overcurrent protection device near the origin of the circuit and then add additional lower (or even higher!) overcurrent protection devices further downstream, the wiring is still protected by the original overcurrent protective device (even if the later one would go first) so would be part of the same circuit.

D Skelton · Oct 3, 2014

I think you'll find Dave that people who dodge proper testing will behave that way regardless. Carrying out minor works is no excuse for dodging testing. The same tests are required after minor works such as the alteration of a circuit as would be required with the installation of a new circuit. The same results would be recorded on the MWC; continuity of protective conductors of the modified circuit (including bonding and main earthing conductors), continuity of ring final circuit conductors (if applicable), IR, polarity, Zs, RCD etc... as would be recorded for a single new circuit on an EIC.

I have spurred of power circuits to feed lights plenty of times in all manner of installations. This isn't somehow in order to dodge testing or to dodge the part pee police in circumstances where notification would be applicable, but simply because it has been the best solution in the cases where it has been done. Remember also that you can alter as many circuits as you like without it being notifiable (disregarding alterations in special locations or certain alterations outside). You may in such a situation be required to fill out many separate MWCs, in which case it may just be more practical from a paperwork point of view to just fill out an EIC instead.