IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Rant again
Topic Summary:
Created On: 05 April 2014 09:45 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 05 April 2014 09:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OldSparky.
OldSparky

Posts: 592
Joined: 28 June 2011

hello peeps,

i know i seem to only vent my feelings on here but would like your thoughts.

the wife works for a large housing association, they have a building near home with 6 flats in it.

they use a national company to carry out eicr checks every 5 years.

last week they failed they flats. the reason given no rcd protection, and the 8.4 kw showers were on 6.0mm cable protected by 32a mcbs.

so they convinced the flat manager that all the showers had to be changed to 7.0kw because the shower circuit was overloaded.

before you ask the approx length of run for the shower cable is 10 mtrs.
now please tell me why is it these so called electricians get these ideas in to their heads.

the tenants are now complaining that the showers are rubbish, wait until the winter.

they have also fitted rcbos on all circuits, which is a good thing but totally unnecessary .

to me replacing the showers is almost fraud.

thoughts ??

at what point does an existing building become unsafe just because it is old, by old i mean guessing about 12 years.
 05 April 2014 10:04 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for JZN.
JZN

Posts: 554
Joined: 16 November 2006

I have sympathy for the tenants but not for the housing association in question. They don't employ in-house electricians skilled and experience to do this work "as a cost saving measure". Instead they get someone else in to do the EICRs and it ends up costing a fortune.

Unfortunately that's been the way for a long time now. "Let outsource everything and save money". It's a pet hate of mine.

On a large government establishment where I worked they sacked all the cleaning staff and got in a cleaning firm to do the work. The place looked a tip in no time and it was embarrassing when visitors asked where the toilets were! In fact, when I knew visitors were coming I used to check the loos in our building first and invariably had to call the cleaning office to get loo rolls put in soap topped up and the place cleaned. I'm not joking.

John
 05 April 2014 11:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for sparkiemike.
sparkiemike

Posts: 1529
Joined: 24 January 2008

It is easy to see how they justified it

8400W = 36A

Depending on the installation method the current carrying capacity could be reduced anywhere between 34A to 23.5A



Re the RCBOs, the new 7kW showers probably have manufacturing instructions stating that additional RCD protection is required.

Job done Guv, where do I send the invoice...
 05 April 2014 01:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



geoffsd

Posts: 317
Joined: 15 June 2010

May I ask if people here consider it reasonable/acceptable that manufacturers include a demand for an RCD to be fitted in their shower instructions?

It is obviously desirable for safety reasons but it has nothing to do with the manufacture, installation nor operation of the shower and for a replacement shower it is not required by the electrical regulations that the installation be updated.
 05 April 2014 02:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mikejumper

Posts: 1701
Joined: 14 December 2006

Originally posted by: geoffsd
May I ask if people here consider it reasonable/acceptable that manufacturers include a demand for an RCD to be fitted in their shower instructions?
.

I've seen a very good reason to always fit RCD's on shower circuits.

Some years ago I was asked by a customer to check the shower in a flat he let out; the tenant said he was getting a burning smell when using the shower.
I found a hole in the side of the shower large enough to put my finger through caused by an overheating poorly connected terminal block.
 05 April 2014 02:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mikejumper

Posts: 1701
Joined: 14 December 2006

Originally posted by: OldSparky
last week they failed they flats. the reason given no rcd protection, and the 8.4 kw showers were on 6.0mm cable protected by 32a mcbs.

I wonder if anyone ever checks what the actual current drawn is before coming to these costly conclusions.
 05 April 2014 08:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 668
Joined: 16 December 2002

You kidding! It's a bonus to get any test at all let alone any bonus tests!
 05 April 2014 11:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Imhidingunderyourfloor

Posts: 42
Joined: 13 September 2007

This type of overselling is just awful. Unless you do an EICR to challenge it though it gets accepted. No one usually pays for a second EICR so on it goes.

I see it done by companies offering cheap initial EICR's making up the balance on remedials.
 06 April 2014 09:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



phantom9

Posts: 668
Joined: 16 December 2002

I agree. Until the Regs writers get to grips with the fact that electricians cannot hope to identify an appropriate code consistently on an EICR given the vagaries currently on offer ('potentially dangerous' etc) we will forever see stupidity on this scale and the wrong action being taken on inappropriate advice. Every electrician should give the same response to the same situation. All we have at the moment is "I think it should be a code 1", "No it should be a code 2", "No, I disagree it should be a code 3". It is absurd.
 07 April 2014 07:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OldSparky.
OldSparky

Posts: 592
Joined: 28 June 2011

well to answer your replies,

no rcd required when these were fitted, but i agree fitting one is a sensible option.

It is easy to see how they justified it

8400W = 36A

Depending on the installation method the current carrying capacity could be reduced anywhere between 34A to 23.5A

this could be calculated the other way, off the top of my head 6.0mm could carry 41amps. But at 32amp mcb the cable is well protected.

It is the " its failed " that ***** me off , nothing on this site has failed, it only requires minor improvements, if the landlord feels fit i might mention, no one can make him do it..

as said above , over selling it gets my back up..

ok peeps rant over
 07 April 2014 07:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



webbix

Posts: 133
Joined: 29 October 2006

If the replacement shower manufacture instructions say install an RCBO then it has to have one to comply . as the current regulations (I believe) state that all equipment must be installed to manufactures instructions
 07 April 2014 07:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19452
Joined: 23 March 2004

The guy at the HA must be a bit dim - for the sake of a few quid to a tame consultant to get a "second opinion" on the shower rating and RCD issue he gets totally tucked up

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 07 April 2014 08:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for stateit.
stateit

Posts: 2131
Joined: 15 April 2005

Originally posted by: mikejumper

Originally posted by: OldSparky

last week they failed they flats. the reason given no rcd protection, and the 8.4 kw showers were on 6.0mm cable protected by 32a mcbs.



I wonder if anyone ever checks what the actual current drawn is before coming to these costly conclusions.


Being the type of Nerd I am, I have.

They draw the exact current you'd expect by basic calculation. The full monty. Whether on 'cold' or 'hot'. It's the water flow rate that's adjusted, not the input to the element. No diversity at all.

-------------------------
S George
http://www.sg-electrical.com
 07 April 2014 08:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



MrP

Posts: 831
Joined: 24 March 2006

The fist Question did it work and for how long with no detrimental effect. Second Question
Did the installation comply when it was first put into service end of
no rcd no upgrade
the words pants down, your, having and my come to mind

MrP good work if can get it
 07 April 2014 09:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for stateit.
stateit

Posts: 2131
Joined: 15 April 2005

Is it 'Potentially Dangerous' though

-------------------------
S George
http://www.sg-electrical.com
 08 April 2014 12:37 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alancapon

Posts: 5745
Joined: 27 December 2005

Originally posted by: OldSparky
. . . It is easy to see how they justified it

8400W = 36A . . .

It isn't that easy. An electric shower is basically a fixed resistance. In order to calculate the current, you need to know:
- the actual supply voltage (at the shower terminals)
- the voltage that the shower manufacturer has chosen to give the heater power at.

If (for example) the rating of 8.4kW is for a terminal voltage of 250V, then working the maths with an actual supply voltage of 230V gives you a heating power of 7.1kW or if you prefer 30.9A.

If this is the case, then it is likely that the original scenario complied.

Regards,

Alan.
 08 April 2014 08:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



BillI

Posts: 36
Joined: 26 August 2006

So it is also possible that one lot of 8.4kW @ 250V (7.1kW @ 230V) showers have been replaced with another set much the same!

Bill
 08 April 2014 11:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alancapon

Posts: 5745
Joined: 27 December 2005

Yes, unless the new ones were 7kW at 250V!

Regards,

Alan.
 10 April 2014 08:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OldSparky.
OldSparky

Posts: 592
Joined: 28 June 2011

anyway they were stung..
 12 April 2014 07:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for davezawadi.
davezawadi

Posts: 2620
Joined: 26 June 2002

Of course it just proves that those doing the EICR should not be allowed to do any reparations! Then this kind of thing would be much less likely.

-------------------------
David
CEng etc, don't ask, its a result not a question!
IET » Wiring and the regulations » Rant again

1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.