NAPIT Codebreakers #6

NAPIT Codebreakers #6

Need help with cracking those EICR codes?

The technical team at NAPIT, with the help of the brand new 18th Edition Codebreakers publication, answer your latest coding queries.

RICHARD STENNER: Thought you might like this horror show for your magazine? Whoever installed this decided they didn’t need MCB’s for the chiller supply!

I have to admit, that’s one of the most blatant failures to fit a protective device I’ve seen. The implications for serious injury from electric shock, in a fault scenario are just inconceivable.

Without adequate Overcurrent Protection, not only are the lives of those coming into contact with this circuit in grave danger, but there is a high potential fire risk if a significant overcurrent occurs. This kind of approach to circuit design is verging on criminal and highlights the need for regular inspections and maintenance to ensure the safety of users from both electric shock and fire.

GUY BUERUER: Just smashing! This was found recently whilst carrying out an EICR. The customer purchased the property without having an electrical survey carried out – they didn’t even know where the fusebox was…

This type of modification is often seen in these older boards. I fail to understand why people think it’s OK to supply a circuit directly from the incoming tails to a CU without the need for an Overcurrent Protective Device (OCPD).

There’re no excuses; this is incredibly dangerous, with no means to isolate the circuit as it’s on the incoming side of the switch. Not to mention the modification of manufacturer’s equipment, which I’m fairly sure wouldn’t be sanctioned or considered acceptable.

To find out how you can order your copy of the updated 18th Edition Codebreakers publication visit:

Related posts