Spot the error in this, then.

[Rockingit]

I received this yesterday as wiring instructions - spot the reason why I've just gone ballastic at them!

View attachment SC Guidelines for Contractors - Electrical Datasheet.pdf

 

[Des 56]

Its the interpretation of the reg you are quoting,

Have a read of this question here and some of the views on the thread next below
Subcategory - 1. BS7671 - Voltimum UK - Electrical Installation Products and Contracting

IET Forums - Using a cpc as a line conductor . . . .

 

[Rockingit]

OKaaaaaay.....I see, sort of, where this is going, but 514.4.4 says that other conductors shall be identified in accordance with table 51, so I really don't think it holds up given that if it's not a single core then it has to be 'another'. TBH, it's a bit of a pointless debate.

 

[Simlec]

Very poor diagram, this is easy for you to put right by using YY Flex and shelving and numbering accordingly.

 

[Des 56]

OKaaaaaay.....I see, sort of, where this is going, but 514.4.4 says that other conductors shall be identified in accordance with table 51, so I really don't think it holds up given that if it's not a single core then it has to be 'another'. TBH, it's a bit of a pointless debate.

I didn't intend it as a debate
I read the thread and the possible intention of you going to trading standards on this issue

I thought it would be imperative for you that the complaint was justified with this particular issue

The reg quoted has a different interpretation to your own by others
Whether these practices are adopted by us or no, it could have rebounded on yourself if the designers of the system had mentioned it was not aginst the regs

 

[ackbarthestar]

I see this type of wiring quite regularly. Where 3 core flexible cable is used to supply class II equipment such as PIRs . The Grn/Yell cpc gets substituted for the switch line.
Its not particularly good practice especially when published as exceptable by a manufacturer !

I would strongly suggest that you kick up a fuss.

 

[Rockingit]

I didn't intend it as a debate
I read the thread and the possible intention of you going to trading standards on this issue

I thought it would be imperative for you that the complaint was justified with this particular issue

The reg quoted has a different interpretation to your own by others
Whether these practices are adopted by us or no, it could have rebounded on yourself if the designers of the system had mentioned it was not aginst the regs

Taken as gentlemanly, and scholarly, concern. Thank you. I'll probably just leave it to a gentle nudge of a chat with their technical director to suggest they amend the drawing. Have enough battles on my plate at the moment as it is!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

chardonnay or charlatans.....lol....