PIR Code!!

DurhamSparky · Feb 23, 2011

got me puzzled!!

Spur from Spur?? Code 2 or code 4

no signs of overheating or abuse! ZS reading in range and been truthful its been ripped out next month to make way for a new kitchen!??

looked in Best Practice and cant find a coding for it!

Deleted member 26818 · Feb 23, 2011

I'd go with a Code 2.
Never as far as I'm aware been something allowed by the Regs. and it does present a possible danger if over loaded.

ghost · Feb 23, 2011

I would code 2 if the original spur is unfused from a ring.

tonys · Feb 23, 2011

This is only my opinion, if the protective device exceeds the cable rating and there's an opportunity to overload the cable, then I would code 1. But you know whats happening on the ground in practical terms and if your doing the kitchen work.

Deleted member 9648 · Feb 23, 2011

I'd take into account the likely use...if it was a single from a single I'd code 4 as the likelyhood of an overload is minimal....twin from a twin I'd code 2 as there is a real possibility of overloading....I would only code 1 if there was actual evidence of overheating caused by overloading.

DurhamSparky · Feb 23, 2011

spur is fed from a spur unfused and from a 32 ring,

no unfortunately i dont have the kitchen work as another spark from kitchen company is doing that but he wanted paperwork before he touched the circuits??? house was partially rewired in 1999 otherwise it was a 250 fee to carry out a PIR on 2x circuits (ring down and cooker) as it never had a part p cert (other spark sounds like a complete clown as part p is a 2006 government idea!!)

client shoved me 50 notes to PIR 2x Circuits to keep other spark happy and get his kitchen fitted!

Nice too see you again ghost! keeping busy!

ghost · Feb 23, 2011

I'm ok Steve, cheers. Ticking over, can't complain!
What sort of spark needs to pay another spark to check work for him??????
Sounds a bit of a coco to me.

tony mc · Feb 23, 2011

Why doent the other spark just certify the work in the kitchen when he has finished the job if he is only doing the kitchen?

Seems a little strange !!!

MarkieSparkie · Feb 23, 2011

Potential overload risk therefore I would Code 2. The circuit requires improvement, removal of the offending socket if acceptable to client or both spurs wired as a fused spur from a BS 1363-4 FSU.

DurhamSparky · Feb 23, 2011

YUP...!!i think he was just trying to fleece customer for another 250 quid!!

the customer requested i did the report not the other spark sorry! the othr spark wanted to see a schedule of test results or part p paper work before he would even start!! if cust never produced them he was going to charge 250 to carry out a PRE Work check...!! unbelievable!

ghost · Feb 23, 2011

This wasn't a well known kitchen and bathroom company based on portrack by chance?

tony mc · Feb 23, 2011

At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.!!!!!! Robbery...

nickblake · Feb 23, 2011

DurhamSparky said:
YUP...!!i think he was just trying to fleece customer for another 250 quid!!

the customer requested i did the report not the other spark sorry! the othr spark wanted to see a schedule of test results or part p paper work before he would even start!! if cust never produced them he was going to charge 250 to carry out a PRE Work check...!! unbelievable!

ide code 2 it mate as it does require improving , be intresting to get round and check this guys work after he's done the kitchen and issued the cert

dook · Feb 23, 2011

Still learning so go easy guys. Can someone please explain to me why it is a possible overload to spur off a spur from a ring, but when sockets are run in a radial you can spur as many times as you like? -within reason!