Periodic electrical inspection

I agree, except for a ring circuit, I always connect the two ends of the earth to different terminals. It increases the redundancy of the earthing, and it used to be a requirement in the case of high earth leakage circuits in older versions of the regs.

Yes, although I think Tony's inspector was being a wee bit anal on some of the points. The requirement is only that the conductors can be identified for testing, repair or alteration [514.1.2] and (IMHO) connecting the neutrals and CPCs in the same running order as the MCBs is OK. In any case the neutrals in a split-load board have to go to the right group and it's not always possible to use "same numbers". For complicated distribution boards it's good practice to keep documentation and circuits can easily be mapped to terminal numbers in the schedule of circuits.

It still is one of the options in the 17th ed. (used along with separate termination of each CPC at each accessory). I don't recall much changing in the high-integrity earthing section since it was first introduced, except that "high earth leakage" was changed to "high protective conductor current" to clarify that it doesn't apply where the leakage doesn't flow via the CPC. In the new edition this has moved to the main body of the regs [543.7] and is no longer a separate section.

Arse protecting;?.......

I'm wondering what Code numbers were given, and regulations cited, if any:

Code 1 (or Code 2 for a class 2 fitting)?

Regulation number? Code 2 or 4?

In bathroom, presumably - Code 2?

Regulation number? Code 2 or 4?

Code 2 or 4?

You might want to read

which gives advice on coding, with examples.

That's what PI insurance is for.

Let's face it, choosing to be an inspector is bound to imply a degree of obsessive compulsiveness - much like programming appeals to people with mild Aspergers...

I was quite happy with his approach, likewise he could see that if a few details were lacking/not was he would have done it, all the key stuff was right - bonds to incoming services, sleeving at accessories, ring continuity etc etc. Also I made it clear to him that I wanted to sell on knowing that everything was genuinely AOK, rather than just wanting a bit of paper issued by someone who would sign anything.

Shirley

Would be more appropriate.

Probably just a need to find something to make you feel you got your money's worth!

It certainly would. I copied the wrong URL, sorry.

The photo on page 6 shows the inspector using a neon screwdriver. I hope he only used it to remove the front plate :-)

Adam

Would

He can't be an inspector. He hasn't got a peaked cap.

I thought that the photovoltaic system listed on page 12 was a cracker

- listed under Requires Improvement. :-)

The photo on page 13 of a typical RCD split load CU has been labelled my a pissed up man (or woman). The stickers are all to c*ck and on a MK CU (as with many other manufacturers) it should be green headers carrying on to the right after the RCD PROTECTED CIRCUITS sticker not red. The correct stickers came in the box.

We will have fun with this link at work tommorrow.

Adam

Yes I noticed that, but then the caption does say "in typical split load etc." It wouldn't surprise me at all if that's typical of what's found in the field. Not many years ago finding _any_ labelling was a rarity...

You thought you had done OK if found "lights" in pencil on the dark bakerlite cover of a Wylex 6 way CU.

I scanned the label for my new CU, did all the circuit naming in a matching font, coloured cross hatching for RCD protected and printed it out on sticky backed paper. Anorak? Never in a million years.

I've done similar. The house CU label here was drawn in autoCAD and produced on a pen plotter. Remember pen plotters...?

Of course not.

That's about it, yes. I think some of the perpetrators have gone on to become web site designers :~)

Last time I did something like that, I printed on plain paper, laminated each label and then attached them with superglue!