You would also think that the Eskom approved contractors would also lead by example, ie..been trained correctly on how to fill out a COC. I cant remember if I posted a copy of the COC, it is a good example of how not to fill out a COC.
You would also think that the Eskom approved contractors would also lead by example, ie..been trained correctly on how to fill out a COC. I cant remember if I posted a copy of the COC, it is a good example of how not to fill out a COC.
The biggest problem with our industry at the moment is there are very few reasonably trained personal qualified to answer technical questions when it comes to the COC or should I say any technical matter.
Agreed, between the lack of 'policing' or enforcement and the unrealistic requirement for a full COC of the existing installation regardless of how small the addition or alteration it will set the scene for avoidance of the requirement playing a detrimentally large part in circuit designs and also possibly encourage the use by the customer of casual, unqualified and untracable contractors who are happy to ignore the requirement completely hence can offer the 'same job' at a fraction of the price. I don't see things ending well in the long term.Originally Posted by Dave A
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Now i'm going to get my a*se kicked!
I've led you all down the wrong path by mistake, but no-one picked it up, so in my defence perhaps were all bozo's.
The above quote (3) says that if the house existed prior to 23/10/1992 then it does not need a coc, UNTILL an addition or alteration takes place then the whole house needs to be certified. That makes sense, you cant make a coc just for the addition if you have no original coc to add it onto.
By inference, if the house existed after 23/10/1992, then it must already be covered by an existing, VALID certificate provided of course that regular maintenance was performed.
Thereafter, subsection (4) should take precedence (and in my wisdom I neglected to add it on before)
(4)
Where any addition or alteration has been effected to an electrical installation for which a certificate of compliance was previously issued, the user or lessor of such electrical installation shall obtain a certificate of compliance for at least the addition or alteration.
So,in my opinion, little has changed from before and I think i'm right this time.
To make a mistake is human, to learn from that mistake is knowledge and knowledge is strength.
Nope, you actually got us started down the right path (with a little tweak in post 8) - I suspect you've just caught up with the rest of us.
Or there's been a change of ownership, of course. But when it comes to purely a matter of additions and alterations, that is exactly the challenge with unanticipated consequences we've all identified in a nutshell.
Participation is voluntary.
Alcocks Electrical Services | Alcocks Pest Control & Entomological Services | Alcocks Hygiene Services
I couldn't get a 50Amp SP&N. So I bought 2x 50amp single breakers. Can I use these 2 single 50amp breakers and just connect there 2 levers with a piece of wire or toothpick (and colour the one lever green) If the live tripit will take the neutral with via the "toothpick"
I'm living 90kms away from the suppliers, so it is not easy just to go down the road and pick one up. The question is, is this acceptable?
Thanks for a helpfull answer.
No, you can't use 2x single pole breakers to effectively make an SP+N and you can't link 3 x single pole breakers together to effectively make a triple pole...unless the manufacturers specifically say you can and sell a kit to do the job. I've seen it tried several times and it's always been problems where upon tripping the lever doesn't drop because the other breaker it's linked to is holding up in the 'on' position.
I'm not an expert on the internal construction of circuit breakers but I'm assuming the two internal poles of an SP+N breaker are mechanically interlocked internally (not just by their external levers) so you don't get one pole opening to a fault condition without the other (although one pole may deliberately open fractionally before the other). Likewise with a triple pole where all 3 poles will be internally connected so they operate simultaneously.
The big problem specifically using 2 single poles linked as a home-made SP+N is that if the neutral side trips and the live side remains connected it will create a dangerous condition on the final circuit it's protecting and could result in a shock hazard.
Many manufacturers have changed the design of SP+N breakers relatively recently so they now only have one lever which suggests both poles may be on the same mechanical tripping mechanism internally, whilst I may be wrong, I'd guess this is delberate design to improve safety by ensuring both poles have to follow each other rather than just a cost-cutting exercise. Maybe if someone is more clued up on MCB manufacture they'll hopefully confrm if this is the case because I'd be interested to know for sure.
In a nutshell, don't do it because it's not safe. Rather go the extra mile and fit the correct item.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
My mother in law bought a house in 1984 (built about 1960) and has never had a compliance certificate. A fire in the kitchen has damaged the electric circuits and the insurance co. (Standard Bank) say they are only willing to repair the circuits that have been damaged and their nominated electrical contractor, who has quoted R3600 to do the repairs, will issue a certificate for that portion only. The old board still has fuses and the wiring is in split conduit with, I suspect, fibre insulation.
An independent contractor has advised us that the whole installation has to be upgraded at a cost of R25000.
Can someone please advise as to what is required from an electrical point and what we should reasonably expect the insurance co. to pay for?
I am sure that there are many thousands of elderly folk, living in old houses, that have never even heard of compliance certificates.
Just a quick question on a previous posting regarding DB's and fuses - I cant find anywhere which states that a DB with fuses is illegal(existing pre 1992) - the only requirement is that they cannot be the re-wirable type of fuse. Have I missed something
Interesting.
The insurance company is bound to pay for what is covered in terms of the insurance policy - probably what was damaged at best.
The two things that make the question interesting are -
- Some policies will repudiate a claim if there hasn't been necessary maintenance
- How are they going to issue a COC on the portion repaired if the balance of the installation does not comply with the General Safety Principles?
Technically, if they merely repair the installation and do not alter it, they do not have to issue a COC on the work. Might be easier said than done, though.
Nearly all the fuse type domestic DB's I've seen are the re-wirable fuse type.
Participation is voluntary.
Alcocks Electrical Services | Alcocks Pest Control & Entomological Services | Alcocks Hygiene Services
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.