Report.

[telectrix]

Armour not earthed, 411.3.1.1
Conductor identification, 514.3
Unsuitable connection enclosure, 526.7
Bends in swa cable, 522.8.3
Non compatible protective device, 536.4.203
There are multiple Regs you could throw at this including the slick termination of the cable at the board.

SUPER. THANK YOU.

 

[Ian1981]

I wouldn’t include no 5 in your report, as overloaded protection can be omitted for fixed loads such as a shower so ib<In<Iz is not relevant, you just need to make sure that the Iz of the cable is large enough including the protective device for the load of the shower and that you have the required fault protection.
So in this case the rcbo is incorrectly sized for the final load 433.1.1 (i)

 

[ChipFanDave]

Apart from all that sounds like a good job.

 

[telectrix]

well, it doesa work. but can't for the life of me understand fitting an instantaneous shower when it would be far less work fitting a mixer shower, hot feed from C/H boiler. all the necessary pipework( not necessarily in the right order though) is under the floor only about 4 ft. away.
[automerge]1587049839[/automerge]

I wouldn’t include no 5 in your report, as overloaded protection can be omitted for fixed loads such as a shower so ib<In<Iz is not relevant, you just need to make sure that the Iz of the cable is large enough including the protective device for the load of the shower and that you have the required fault protection.
So in this case the rcbo is incorrectly sized for the final load 433.1.1 (i)

so i'm half right. the 40A MCB is running at above In, so is in danger of tripping if shower is used by teenage girls, which in this case, it is. 1 x 14 year old monster teenage daughter.
[automerge]1587049912[/automerge]

Apart from all that sounds like a good job.

just seen a pink pig in flight over the trees.

 

[richy3333]

Seriously, WTF! Does the cover fit on that CU?

 

[telectrix]

Seriously, WTF! Does the cover fit on that CU?

yes, it fit's . it's got a huge chunk broke out for the SWA entry.