Sub Board fed from a plug top, EICR Coding

[Zerax]

Has anybody checked to see if the EAWR says anything that might help ?

 

[Ryan G]

I’d like to thank all who have participated, it’s been very interesting/enlightening!

Ive decided to acknowledge the presence of it on the EICR and to recommend that the supply is upgraded, but to say the sub board has not been tested due to it not being part of the fixed installation.

It’s then down to the customer what they do with it!

re-jig the feed to the sub from it's own dedicated MCB. (6mm cable on a 40A. RCD protected??). but that's not in your remit of doing a EICR. quote it.

That would be the way to do it, unfortunately that would mean running a new cable across a newly decorated place with new flooring! Either very unsightly or very costly.

 

[brianmoooore]

I'd say that your responsibility ends at the socket. Check that for heat damage, and if OK, that's it.
Certainly make written comments attached to the EICR, but they won't be actually part of the EICR.
I have a caravan outside which is permanently connected to a 13A s//socket, when it's not on its jaunts around Europe. Would you include the wiring of the caravan in a EICR of my property?
How about if there was a 100A s/fuse right beside and connected to the DNO supply of a 4 bed house, the s/fuse feeding a 125A blue socket, with a matching plug feeding the CU? House wiring except from part P?

 

[loz2754]

I'd say that your responsibility ends at the socket.

Only if it says that in the extent and limitations.

 

[westward10]

Only if it says that in the extent and limitations.

I don't believe so as the item in question is outside the remit of BS7671.

 

[Deleted account]

I don't believe so as the item in question is outside the remit of BS7671.

Maybe not, but I’d put it in there anyway because mr and Mrs miggins won’t know that.

 

[loz2754]

I don't believe so as the item in question is outside the remit of BS7671.

Maybe so, but if the householder is aware of another consumer unit, feeding several circuits, they may expect that to have been inspected and tested. So for the sake of clarity I would include it as a limitation.

 

[loz2754]

Maybe not, but I’d put it in there anyway because mr and Mrs miggins won’t know that.

Eloquently put!

 

[Deleted account]

Maybe so, but if the householder is aware of another consumer unit, feeding several circuits, they may expect that to have been inspected and tested. So for the sake of clarity I would include it as a limitation.

Like wise

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Something doesn’t seem right with me classing it as only a C3 either!

The loading of the air conditioning unit shouldn’t matter should it? If it pulls more than 13A the plug top would blow.

My concern is the 1.5mm flex cable that is on the plug top could overheat if too much current is drawn .. but the fuse would operate if there was any danger? Or am I wrong in assuming the 1363 fuse is adequate?

If this was to be treated as part of the fixed wiring, then I believe (though stand to be corrected) that a 13A BS1362 fuse will protect a cable rated at =>18A.

433.1.1 and 433.1.201 are relevant , in particular:
433.1.1 (iii)
The current (I2) causing effective operation of the protective device does not exceed 1.45 times the lowest of the current-carrying capacities (lz) of any of the conductors of the circuit.

In the case of a 13A BS1362 fuse, I2 is ~ 26A, or 2 times 13A.

13 X (2/1.45) = 17.9A

 

[GBDamo]

Thank you all for your inputs so far.

Is there anyone who disagrees with a C3?

The sub-board had 4 circuits:- 2 x Radial socket (each supplying one socket) 1 x Lighting (supplying 2 wall lights) and 1 x 20A air conditioning unit.

Is that 20A calculated from the Kw output of the Unit?

If so the max current draw is likely to be no more than 6/7 Amps, the fuse not blowing would hint at this too.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Everyone is being fooled by the appearance of the plug and socket, due to familiarity with the socket outlet as a means of connection for portable appliances. The plug here is not part of a portable appliance, so the dedicated plug-and-socket arrangement becomes a piece of switchear along the run of submain from main DB to conservatory DB. Consider it to be equivalent to an FCU, but using withdrawal of the plug to achieve double-pole isolation. No-one would argue that a permanent circuit fed from an FCU is not part of the electrical installation, surely?

Then, the question is whether as a piece of switchgear, the plug-and-socket is adequate for the purpose. Is its current rating high-enough for the design load, for example,? What about the COP guidance that limits the BS1363 plug earth pin to a maximum design leakage of 3.5mA? You would not really want that limitation on a submain. Used as an isolator, it also switches the CPC, which it is not supposed to do. Overall, I see this as an inappropriate piece of switchgear on the submain and would code it according to its shortcomings in that role.

For anyone still convinced that connection via a plug excludes the conservatory from the installation, consider a theatre-lighting system where all the circuits are patchable. Every dimmer channel (=DB way, which might number dozens or hundreds) terminates in one or two socket-outlets, often directly adjacent to the DB. Every installed circuit cable leading off around the building begins with a plug that can be placed in any of these outlets, like a telephone exchange. Would you then consider that none of the installed wiring is part of the installation?

Note that in the theatre patch panel, the CPC of all the circuits connects to the MET so that it does not rely on the contact of the plug and socket, and remains connected with the plug out. The plug and socket CPCs are also connected for completeness.

 

[telectrix]

Everyone is being fooled by the appearance of the plug and socket, due to familiarity with the socket outlet as a means of connection for portable appliances. The plug here is not part of a portable appliance, so the dedicated plug-and-socket arrangement becomes a piece of switchear along the run of submain from main DB to conservatory DB. Consider it to be equivalent to an FCU, but using withdrawal of the plug to achieve double-pole isolation. No-one would argue that a permanent circuit fed from an FCU is not part of the electrical installation, surely?

Then, the question is whether as a piece of switchgear, the plug-and-socket is adequate for the purpose. Is its current rating high-enough for the design load, for example,? What about the COP guidance that limits the BS1363 plug earth pin to a maximum design leakage of 3.5mA? You would not really want that limitation on a submain. Used as an isolator, it also switches the CPC, which it is not supposed to do. Overall, I see this as an inappropriate piece of switchgear on the submain and would code it according to its shortcomings in that role.

For anyone still convinced that connection via a plug excludes the conservatory from the installation, consider a theatre-lighting system where all the circuits are patchable. Every dimmer channel (=DB way, which might number dozens or hundreds) terminates in one or two socket-outlets, often directly adjacent to the DB. Every installed circuit cable leading off around the building begins with a plug that can be placed in any of these outlets, like a telephone exchange. Would you then consider that none of the installed wiring is part of the installation?

Note that in the theatre patch panel, the CPC of all the circuits connects to the MET so that it does not rely on the contact of the plug and socket, and remains connected with the plug out. The plug and socket CPCs are also connected for completeness.

you should not be posting such long dissertations after beer o'clock. ???

 

[westward10]

Point is it isn't permanently connected.

 

[Risteard]

I'd consider it part of the installation. If it were plugged into a generator it would after all.