On 04/01/2024 09:33, Chris Green wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> You're missing the point. Insurance companies will use /any/ excuse, no
>>> matter how unlikely, to avoid paying out. I agree the 6A breaker should
>>> trip, but if it doesn't and you haven't got the 3A fuse as a backup,
>>> that's what the insurance company will focus on.
>>
>> Do you think a technical non-compliance is enough? Don't you think the
>> insurers would need to show (on the balance of probabilities) that the
>> method of installation materially contributed to the insured event?
>>>
> Even if they did prove this I don't see how it invalidates the
> insurance. One's insurance is against one's house burning down, not
> against a 'random event' causing one's house to burn down. If I drop
> a cigarette on the floor (not that I have ever smoked) and as a result
> the house burns down then (following the same sort of logic as about
> the fuse) then it's "my fault" for dropping the cigarette and for
> having an inflammable carpet and for not having sprinklers installed,
> etc. etc.

No, the issue is that you have deliberately ignored an instruction
regarding installation of the fan. You, and others, might not consider
it necessary, but the fan supplier does. All the insurance company have
to do is show that something regarding the policy has not been complied
with. If you don't believe this, have a look at this decision. This did
involve a fire, but the reason for the reduced payout by the insurance
company (Accelerant) was upheld by the ombudsman:
<https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4044799.pdf>

It was a commercial policy, which may be different from a household one.
Note this part of the decision:
"Accelerant accepts that the qualifying breach wasn’t deliberate or
reckless. In these circumstances, the Act says that the insurer may
reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim."

How much reduced would a payout be where the breach was deliberate or
reckless, in other words ignoring an instruction by the fan supplier to
include a fuse?

--

Jeff

On 04/01/2024 11:53, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:19:47 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2024 10:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2024 08:30, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>> You're missing the point. Insurance companies will use /any/ excuse,
>>>> no matter how unlikely, to avoid paying out. I agree the 6A breaker
>>>> should trip, bu
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> If a 6A trip failed to trip, the insurance company would sue the
>>> manufacturer.
>>
>> Replace 'would' with 'could'. I have never known an insurance company
>> sue a manufacturer. Also any contract is with the final supplier of the
>> goods.
>
> Does Donoghue v Stevenson not apply in English law?

Certainly a landmark case.

However, a one-off manufacturing fault with a QA inspection procedure
will not satisfy a claim using a lack of "duty of care" argument.

>> Either way, feel free to provide an example of where an "insurance
>> company would sue the manufacturer". I know you won't be able to as per
>> typical of your silly claims.

So, provide an example for an MCB or similar device.

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:55:25 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

>On 04/01/2024 11:53, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:19:47 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/01/2024 10:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 04/01/2024 08:30, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>> You're missing the point. Insurance companies will use /any/ excuse,
>>>>> no matter how unlikely, to avoid paying out. I agree the 6A breaker
>>>>> should trip, bu
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> If a 6A trip failed to trip, the insurance company would sue the
>>>> manufacturer.
>>>
>>> Replace 'would' with 'could'. I have never known an insurance company
>>> sue a manufacturer. Also any contract is with the final supplier of the
>>> goods.
>>
>> Does Donoghue v Stevenson not apply in English law?
>
>Certainly a landmark case.
>
>However, a one-off manufacturing fault with a QA inspection procedure
>will not satisfy a claim using a lack of "duty of care" argument.

Would this not be one of the facta probanda?
>
>>> Either way, feel free to provide an example of where an "insurance
>>> company would sue the manufacturer". I know you won't be able to as per
>>> typical of your silly claims.
>
>So, provide an example for an MCB or similar device.

On 03/01/2024 16:48, nothanks@aolbin.com wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 16:07, Tricky Dicky wrote:
>>
>> I am fitting a Manrose MF100T ventilation fan in our bathroom. This will
>> have a 3 pole isolator outside the bathroom and the plan is to run it in
>> conjunction with the bathroom light so that the fan comes on when the
>> light
>> is operated typical of many windowless bathrooms and en-suites in many
>> modern houses.
>>
>> The issue is that the manufacturer specify’s a 3A max. fuse for live and
>> switched live and of course the lighting circuit is 6A.
>>
>> One option is to fit a fused spur unit into the incoming feed for the
>> bathroom but that means all lights beyond that point would now be
>> protected
>> by a 3A fuse and the issue is that there are at least 3 ceiling fans
>> in the
>> rooms beyond that point.
>>
>> An alternative is to take 3-core and E cable from the bathroom light as
>> planned and using two FCU’s
>> One for live and the other for switched live before running the rest
>> of the
>> cable to the 3-pole isolator.
>>
>> The trouble is that I have not seen this arrangement anywhere. My
>> daughters
>> new build has one bathroom, 2 en-suites and a cloakroom/WC all windowless
>> and all with ventilators activated by the light switch and I know all the
>> lighting circuits are 6A.
>>
>> So what to do?
>>
>> I have a link to a similar fan which unlike the instructions for the
>> MF100T
>> has a wiring diagram
>>
>> https://www.manrose.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/doc/FandWs/496934.pdf
> Not an answer, but a suggestion: consider having two pull switches, one
> for the fan and one for the light, rather than having the fan always
> come on with the light. This means you don't have the fan noise at night
> time and you can leave the fan on for a while in the morning after a
> vindaloo supper the night before.

A further thought: you could put a 3A fuse inside the fan enclosure if
you wanted a fuse but not an FCU.

On 03/01/2024 16:48, nothanks@aolbin.com wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 16:07, Tricky Dicky wrote:
>>
>> I am fitting a Manrose MF100T ventilation fan in our bathroom. This will
>> have a 3 pole isolator outside the bathroom and the plan is to run it in
>> conjunction with the bathroom light so that the fan comes on when the
>> light
>> is operated typical of many windowless bathrooms and en-suites in many
>> modern houses.
>>
>> The issue is that the manufacturer specify’s a 3A max. fuse for live and
>> switched live and of course the lighting circuit is 6A.
>>
>> One option is to fit a fused spur unit into the incoming feed for the
>> bathroom but that means all lights beyond that point would now be
>> protected
>> by a 3A fuse and the issue is that there are at least 3 ceiling fans
>> in the
>> rooms beyond that point.
>>
>> An alternative is to take 3-core and E cable from the bathroom light as
>> planned and using two FCU’s
>> One for live and the other for switched live before running the rest
>> of the
>> cable to the 3-pole isolator.
>>
>> The trouble is that I have not seen this arrangement anywhere. My
>> daughters
>> new build has one bathroom, 2 en-suites and a cloakroom/WC all windowless
>> and all with ventilators activated by the light switch and I know all the
>> lighting circuits are 6A.
>>
>> So what to do?
>>
>> I have a link to a similar fan which unlike the instructions for the
>> MF100T
>> has a wiring diagram
>>
>> https://www.manrose.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/doc/FandWs/496934.pdf
> Not an answer, but a suggestion: consider having two pull switches, one
> for the fan and one for the light, rather than having the fan always
> come on with the light. This means you don't have the fan noise at night
> time and you can leave the fan on for a while in the morning after a
> vindaloo supper the night before.

I've used an isolating fan pull-switch for this purpose. It also
switches all 3 conductors to the fan.

On 04/01/2024 14:18, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:55:25 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2024 11:53, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:19:47 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/01/2024 10:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 04/01/2024 08:30, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>>> You're missing the point. Insurance companies will use /any/ excuse,
>>>>>> no matter how unlikely, to avoid paying out. I agree the 6A breaker
>>>>>> should trip, bu
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a 6A trip failed to trip, the insurance company would sue the
>>>>> manufacturer.
>>>>
>>>> Replace 'would' with 'could'. I have never known an insurance company
>>>> sue a manufacturer. Also any contract is with the final supplier of the
>>>> goods.
>>>
>>> Does Donoghue v Stevenson not apply in English law?
>>
>> Certainly a landmark case.
>>
>> However, a one-off manufacturing fault with a QA inspection procedure
>> will not satisfy a claim using a lack of "duty of care" argument.
>
> Would this not be one of the facta probanda?

In so far evidence of QA procedure would dismiss such a case.

>>>> Either way, feel free to provide an example of where an "insurance
>>>> company would sue the manufacturer". I know you won't be able to as per
>>>> typical of your silly claims.
>>
>> So, provide an example for an MCB or similar device.

On 04/01/2024 13:44, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 04/01/2024 09:33, Chris Green wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're missing the point. Insurance companies will use /any/ excuse, no
>>>> matter how unlikely, to avoid paying out. I agree the 6A breaker should
>>>> trip, but if it doesn't and you haven't got the 3A fuse as a backup,
>>>> that's what the insurance company will focus on.
>>>
>>> Do you think a technical non-compliance is enough? Don't you think the
>>> insurers would need to show (on the balance of probabilities) that the
>>> method of installation materially contributed to the insured event?
>>>>
>> Even if they did prove this I don't see how it invalidates the
>> insurance.  One's insurance is against one's house burning down, not
>> against a 'random event' causing one's house to burn down.  If I drop
>> a cigarette on the floor (not that I have ever smoked) and as a result
>> the house burns down then (following the same sort of logic as about
>> the fuse) then it's "my fault" for dropping the cigarette and for
>> having an inflammable carpet and for not having sprinklers installed,
>> etc. etc.
>
> No, the issue is that you have deliberately ignored an instruction
> regarding installation of the fan. You, and others, might not consider
> it necessary, but the fan supplier does. All the insurance company have
> to do is show that something regarding the policy has not been complied
> with. If you don't believe this, have a look at this decision. This did
> involve a fire, but the reason for the reduced payout by the insurance
> company (Accelerant) was upheld by the ombudsman:
> <https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4044799.pdf>
>
> It was a commercial policy, which may be different from a household one.
> Note this part of the decision:
> "Accelerant accepts that the qualifying breach wasn’t deliberate or
> reckless. In these circumstances, the Act says that the insurer may
> reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim."
>
> How much reduced would a payout be where the breach was deliberate or
> reckless, in other words ignoring an instruction by the fan supplier to
> include a fuse?
>
Do you work in the public sector?
Rules for fools is definitely your area of expertise.]

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 14:40:29 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

>On 04/01/2024 14:18, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:55:25 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/01/2024 11:53, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:19:47 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04/01/2024 10:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/01/2024 08:30, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>>>> You're missing the point. Insurance companies will use /any/ excuse,
>>>>>>> no matter how unlikely, to avoid paying out. I agree the 6A breaker
>>>>>>> should trip, bu
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a 6A trip failed to trip, the insurance company would sue the
>>>>>> manufacturer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Replace 'would' with 'could'. I have never known an insurance company
>>>>> sue a manufacturer. Also any contract is with the final supplier of the
>>>>> goods.
>>>>
>>>> Does Donoghue v Stevenson not apply in English law?
>>>
>>> Certainly a landmark case.
>>>
>>> However, a one-off manufacturing fault with a QA inspection procedure
>>> will not satisfy a claim using a lack of "duty of care" argument.
>>
>> Would this not be one of the facta probanda?
>
>In so far evidence of QA procedure would dismiss such a case.

Agreed, if such evidence is accepted of course.

On 04/01/2024 13:44, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
> No, the issue is that you have deliberately ignored an instruction
> regarding installation of the fan.

What about when Manufacturers Instructions say 'must be installed by a
NICEIC registered electrician'
I've seen that a number of times.
Thats why the electrical regs had a wording change a few years back, so
such stupid Manufacturers Instructions can be ignored.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:07:17 +0000, Alan Lee <alan@darkroom.plus.com>
wrote:

>On 04/01/2024 13:44, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>> No, the issue is that you have deliberately ignored an instruction
>> regarding installation of the fan.
>
>What about when Manufacturers Instructions say 'must be installed by a
>NICEIC registered electrician'
>I've seen that a number of times.
>Thats why the electrical regs had a wording change a few years back, so
>such stupid Manufacturers Instructions can be ignored.

As an aside, an instruction now seems to be appearing to the effect
that children from 8 years and above can use, clean and perform user
maintenance on this appliance in accordance with the User Instructions
provided they are supervised by a person responsible for their safety
and have been given instruction concerning the use of the appliance
and are aware of the hazards.

I wonder where the age of eight came from. I don't think this is a
recognised stage of legal capacity.

On 04/01/2024 15:07, Alan Lee wrote:
> On 04/01/2024 13:44, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>> No, the issue is that you have deliberately ignored an instruction
>> regarding installation of the fan.
>
>
> What about when Manufacturers Instructions say 'must be installed by a
> NICEIC registered electrician'
> I've seen that a number of times.
> Thats why the electrical regs had a wording change a few years back, so
> such stupid Manufacturers Instructions can be ignored.

Quite so. But it takes time and many examples before it is shown to be
unnecessary. The question remains that if the insurance company refuses
to pay out, and you complain to the ombudsman before the regs have
changed, will he find in your favour or not?

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 04/01/2024 09:33, Chris Green wrote:
> > Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You're missing the point. Insurance companies will use /any/ excuse, no
> >>> matter how unlikely, to avoid paying out. I agree the 6A breaker should
> >>> trip, but if it doesn't and you haven't got the 3A fuse as a backup,
> >>> that's what the insurance company will focus on.
> >>
> >> Do you think a technical non-compliance is enough? Don't you think the
> >> insurers would need to show (on the balance of probabilities) that the
> >> method of installation materially contributed to the insured event?
> >>>
> > Even if they did prove this I don't see how it invalidates the
> > insurance. One's insurance is against one's house burning down, not
> > against a 'random event' causing one's house to burn down. If I drop
> > a cigarette on the floor (not that I have ever smoked) and as a result
> > the house burns down then (following the same sort of logic as about
> > the fuse) then it's "my fault" for dropping the cigarette and for
> > having an inflammable carpet and for not having sprinklers installed,
> > etc. etc.
>
> No, the issue is that you have deliberately ignored an instruction
> regarding installation of the fan.

I might similarly have ignored an instruction about smoking in bed.

--
Chris Green
·

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:28:07 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 03/01/2024 18:41, Alan Lee wrote:
> >> > On 03/01/2024 16:07, Tricky Dicky wrote:
> >> >> One option is to fit a fused spur unit into the incoming feed for the
> >> >> bathroom but that means all lights beyond that point would now be protected
> >> >> by a 3A fuse and the issue is that there are at least 3 ceiling fans in the
> >> >> rooms beyond that point.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Just do what 95% of sparkies do, and dont bother with the fused spur.
> >> > There really is no need for it.
> >>
> >> When your house burns down because of a short in the fan leading to a
> >> fire, which would have blown a 3A fuse, you will have to convince your
> >> insurance company that the absent fuse would have made no difference
> >> when they refuse to pay out. Good luck with that.
> >>
> >On what grounds wouldn't they pay out? They'd surely have to prove
> >you *intended* the house to burn down as a result of not fitting the
> >fuse. Otherwise all accidental damage policies would be pointless.
>
> I think gross negligence would suffice. If you leave the keys in your
> car, you could hardly argue that you did not intend someone to steal
> it.

I know of such a case (many years ago), keys left in car, insurance
company tried to wriggle out of paying up but in they end they paid.
I think it was down to the intentions behind leaving the keys in the
car, the claimant said he left them there by mistake and that was
enough to make the claim good.

--
Chris Green
·

On 04/01/2024 15:31, Chris Green wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:28:07 +0000, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 03/01/2024 18:41, Alan Lee wrote:
>>>>> On 03/01/2024 16:07, Tricky Dicky wrote:
>>>>>> One option is to fit a fused spur unit into the incoming feed for the
>>>>>> bathroom but that means all lights beyond that point would now be protected
>>>>>> by a 3A fuse and the issue is that there are at least 3 ceiling fans in the
>>>>>> rooms beyond that point.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just do what 95% of sparkies do, and dont bother with the fused spur.
>>>>> There really is no need for it.
>>>>
>>>> When your house burns down because of a short in the fan leading to a
>>>> fire, which would have blown a 3A fuse, you will have to convince your
>>>> insurance company that the absent fuse would have made no difference
>>>> when they refuse to pay out. Good luck with that.
>>>>
>>> On what grounds wouldn't they pay out? They'd surely have to prove
>>> you *intended* the house to burn down as a result of not fitting the
>>> fuse. Otherwise all accidental damage policies would be pointless.
>>
>> I think gross negligence would suffice. If you leave the keys in your
>> car, you could hardly argue that you did not intend someone to steal
>> it.
>
> I know of such a case (many years ago), keys left in car, insurance
> company tried to wriggle out of paying up but in they end they paid.
> I think it was down to the intentions behind leaving the keys in the
> car, the claimant said he left them there by mistake and that was
> enough to make the claim good.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff71860d03e7f57ea77a1

Makes interesting reading.

Most policies now have a wording to remove this sort of claim.

On 04/01/2024 00:00, SteveW wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 22:14, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 03/01/2024 18:41, Alan Lee wrote:
>>> On 03/01/2024 16:07, Tricky Dicky wrote:
>>>> One option is to fit a fused spur unit into the incoming feed for the
>>>> bathroom but that means all lights beyond that point would now be
>>>> protected
>>>> by a 3A fuse and the issue is that there are at least 3 ceiling fans
>>>> in the
>>>> rooms beyond that point.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just do what 95% of sparkies do, and dont bother with the fused spur.
>>> There really is no need for it.
>>
>> When your house burns down because of a short in the fan leading to a
>> fire, which would have blown a 3A fuse, you will have to convince your
>> insurance company that the absent fuse would have made no difference
>> when they refuse to pay out. Good luck with that.
>
> A short would trip the 6A breaker anyway. An overload would be
> different, but a ventilation fan, even if stalled, would not overload a
> 3A fuse.
>
> Sensibly, with such fans being connected to the lighting circuit to be
> able to operate with the lights, the requirements should specify that
> the fans should be suitable to be on a 6A circuit without additional
> protection.
>

random question....

If the entire lighing circuit is on LED bulbs only and there are no
halogen or tungsten filaments or fluorescents, the load would be much
lower so could one downrate the existing 6A MCB/RCBO down to 3A or do 3A
RCBOs/MCBs not exist?

S.

On 05/01/2024 10:28, SH wrote:
> On 04/01/2024 00:00, SteveW wrote:
>> On 03/01/2024 22:14, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 03/01/2024 18:41, Alan Lee wrote:
>>>> On 03/01/2024 16:07, Tricky Dicky wrote:
>>>>> One option is to fit a fused spur unit into the incoming feed for the
>>>>> bathroom but that means all lights beyond that point would now be
>>>>> protected
>>>>> by a 3A fuse and the issue is that there are at least 3 ceiling
>>>>> fans in the
>>>>> rooms beyond that point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just do what 95% of sparkies do, and dont bother with the fused spur.
>>>> There really is no need for it.
>>>
>>> When your house burns down because of a short in the fan leading to a
>>> fire, which would have blown a 3A fuse, you will have to convince
>>> your insurance company that the absent fuse would have made no
>>> difference when they refuse to pay out. Good luck with that.
>>
>> A short would trip the 6A breaker anyway. An overload would be
>> different, but a ventilation fan, even if stalled, would not overload
>> a 3A fuse.
>>
>> Sensibly, with such fans being connected to the lighting circuit to be
>> able to operate with the lights, the requirements should specify that
>> the fans should be suitable to be on a 6A circuit without additional
>> protection.
>>
>
>
> random question....
>
> If the entire lighing circuit is on LED bulbs only and there are no
> halogen or tungsten filaments or fluorescents, the load would be much
> lower so could one downrate the existing 6A MCB/RCBO down to 3A or do 3A
> RCBOs/MCBs not exist?

6A seems to be the lowest rated RCBO for my consumer unit.

SteveW wrote:

> 6A seems to be the lowest rated RCBO for my consumer unit.

Plenty of 1A MCBs and even the occasional 0.5A, but smallest RCBO I can
see is 2A

On 05/01/2024 10:51, Andy Burns wrote:
> SteveW wrote:
>
>> 6A seems to be the lowest rated RCBO for my consumer unit.
>
> Plenty of 1A MCBs and even the occasional 0.5A, but smallest RCBO I can
> see is 2A

I have a 5 bedroom house and I have literally just counted the number of
bulbs on all of my lighting circuits (I have 4 lighting circuits.)

The one with the most lamps is the ground floor with 55 lamps, all are
LED lamps or LED Strips. All are at 4 to 6 watts.

So lets take the highest wattage bulb and multiply by 55. This gives 330
Watts. There is an extractor fan on the d/stairs toilet fed by this circuit.

The one with the highest wattage lamps is the outdoor floodlights
circuit and there are 18 floodlamps with wattages ranging from 4 watts
to 20 watts. Lets take the 20 watts figure as worst case and multiply by
18 which gives 350 Watts

A 6A MCB or RCBO supports a continuous current of 1320 Watta at a supply
voltage of 220 watts so 6A is cleary more than adequate.

Swapping to a 3A MCB or RCBO would support a continuous current of 660
Watts at a supply voltage of 220 watts which is almost double the the
wattage assuming *all* lamps were all on at the same time. In practie
very few of us actually have *all* the lamps on at the same time.

The main issue with swapping out NCBs/RCBOs/RCDs in a consumer unit is
that it is mandataed somewhere that the consumer unit and the
MCBs/RCBOs/RCDs *should* be from the same manufacturer.

S.

On 05/01/2024 11:32, SH wrote:
> On 05/01/2024 10:51, Andy Burns wrote:
>> SteveW wrote:
>>
>>> 6A seems to be the lowest rated RCBO for my consumer unit.
>>
>> Plenty of 1A MCBs and even the occasional 0.5A, but smallest RCBO I
>> can see is 2A
>
>
> I have a 5 bedroom house and I have literally just counted the number of
> bulbs on all of my lighting circuits (I have 4 lighting circuits.)
>
> The one with the most lamps is the ground floor with 55 lamps, all are
> LED lamps or LED Strips. All are at 4 to 6 watts.
>
> So lets take the highest wattage bulb and multiply by 55. This gives 330
> Watts. There is an extractor fan on the d/stairs toilet fed by this
> circuit.
>
> The one with the highest wattage lamps is the outdoor floodlights
> circuit and there are 18 floodlamps with wattages ranging from 4 watts
> to 20 watts. Lets take the 20 watts figure as worst case and multiply by
> 18 which gives 350 Watts
>
> A 6A MCB or RCBO supports a continuous current of 1320 Watta at a supply
> voltage of 220 watts so 6A is cleary more than adequate.
>
> Swapping to a 3A MCB or RCBO would support a continuous current of 660
> Watts at a supply voltage of 220 watts which is almost double the the
> wattage assuming *all* lamps were all on at the same time. In practie
> very few of us actually have *all* the lamps on at the same time.
>
> The main issue with swapping out NCBs/RCBOs/RCDs in a consumer unit is
> that it is mandataed somewhere that the consumer unit and the
> MCBs/RCBOs/RCDs *should* be from the same manufacturer.
>
> S.
>
>

Coming back to the original OP's query,

It strikces me that there is a possible solution but with a Caveat (*)

Put in a dry lining box next to the light fitting.

Transfer the Power Loop in and Power loop Out cables from the existing
light fitting to the new drylining box.

Then wire in some twin and earth cable from the new drylining box and
then fit a FCU to this drylining box so that the bathroom light is now
on its own 3A supply.

It is assumed that the wall switch also runs to the existing rose and
that the 3 core & E is also taken from the existing rose to the isolator
switch and thence onwards to the fan.

(*) you will need to pay attention to the special zones of bathrooms
such that (a) the FCU is at a sifficient distance and hieght away from
the bath or shower and (b) with it being a humid atmosphere, humidity
may get inside teh FCU so it might be prudent to use a IP66 rated FCU
enclosure OR extend the power loop in, power loop out and the bridging
cable so that teh FCU can be mounted somewhere outside the bathroom.

As a side point, putting a 3A fuse into the Live in for the fan does not
offer any protection to the switched live wire. Although you could put a
2nd fuse into teh Switched live, you then could have an unsafe situation
where if a fuse opens, unless one is diligent about opening the fan
isolator switch, one could be working on a fan thinking its completely
dead when in fact either teh permanent Live or switched Live is still Live!

SH wrote:

> Swapping to a 3A MCB or RCBO would support a continuous current of 660
> Watts at a supply voltage of 220 watts which is almost double the the
> wattage assuming all lamps were all on at the same time.

But if you suffered a power cut while they were all on, what sort of
spike would all the PSUs in those LEDs generate?

On 05/01/2024 11:41, SH wrote:
> On 05/01/2024 11:32, SH wrote:
>> On 05/01/2024 10:51, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> SteveW wrote:
>>>
>>>> 6A seems to be the lowest rated RCBO for my consumer unit.
>>>
>>> Plenty of 1A MCBs and even the occasional 0.5A, but smallest RCBO I
>>> can see is 2A
>>
>>
>> I have a 5 bedroom house and I have literally just counted the number
>> of bulbs on all of my lighting circuits (I have 4 lighting circuits.)
>>
>> The one with the most lamps is the ground floor with 55 lamps, all are
>> LED lamps or LED Strips. All are at 4 to 6 watts.
>>
>> So lets take the highest wattage bulb and multiply by 55. This gives
>> 330 Watts. There is an extractor fan on the d/stairs toilet fed by
>> this circuit.
>>
>> The one with the highest wattage lamps is the outdoor floodlights
>> circuit and there are 18 floodlamps with wattages ranging from 4 watts
>> to 20 watts. Lets take the 20 watts figure as worst case and multiply
>> by 18 which gives 350 Watts
>>
>> A 6A MCB or RCBO supports a continuous current of 1320 Watta at a
>> supply voltage of 220 watts so 6A is cleary more than adequate.
>>
>> Swapping to a 3A MCB or RCBO would support a continuous current of 660
>> Watts at a supply voltage of 220 watts which is almost double the the
>> wattage assuming *all* lamps were all on at the same time. In practie
>> very few of us actually have *all* the lamps on at the same time.
>>
>> The main issue with swapping out NCBs/RCBOs/RCDs in a consumer unit is
>> that it is mandataed somewhere that the consumer unit and the
>> MCBs/RCBOs/RCDs *should* be from the same manufacturer.
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>
>
> Coming back to the original OP's query,
>
> It strikces me that there is a possible solution but with a Caveat (*)
>
> Put in a dry lining box next to the light fitting.
>
> Transfer the Power Loop in and Power loop Out cables from the existing
> light fitting to the new drylining box.
>
> Then wire in some twin and earth cable from the new drylining box and
> then fit a FCU to this drylining box so that the bathroom light is now
> on its own 3A supply.
>
> It is assumed that the wall switch also runs to the existing rose and
> that the 3 core & E is also taken from the existing rose to the isolator
> switch and thence onwards to the fan.
>
> (*) you will need to pay attention to the special zones of bathrooms
> such that (a) the FCU is at a sifficient distance and hieght away from
> the bath or shower and (b) with it being a humid atmosphere, humidity
> may get inside teh FCU so it might be prudent to use a IP66 rated FCU
> enclosure OR extend the power loop in, power loop out and the bridging
> cable so that teh FCU can be mounted somewhere outside the bathroom.
>
> As a side point, putting a 3A fuse into the Live in for the fan does not
> offer any protection to the switched live wire.

The switched live might be a sensor input rather than supplying power. I
note the wiring diagram:
https://www.manrose.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/doc/FandWs/496934.pdf
allows for a fuse in just the live feed.

Nevertheless I still feel that is an issue and would prefer the light
and fan on it's own fuse.

> Although you could put a
> 2nd fuse into teh Switched live, you then could have an unsafe situation
> where if a fuse opens, unless one is diligent about opening the fan
> isolator switch, one could be working on a fan thinking its completely
> dead when in fact either teh permanent Live or switched Live is still Live!

As long as the wires are correctly sleeved, anyone gaining access to the
terminals ought to be checking to see if a wire is live and remove power
wherever possible.

On 05/01/2024 10:28, SH wrote:
> On 04/01/2024 00:00, SteveW wrote:
>> On 03/01/2024 22:14, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 03/01/2024 18:41, Alan Lee wrote:
>>>> On 03/01/2024 16:07, Tricky Dicky wrote:
>>>>> One option is to fit a fused spur unit into the incoming feed for the
>>>>> bathroom but that means all lights beyond that point would now be
>>>>> protected
>>>>> by a 3A fuse and the issue is that there are at least 3 ceiling
>>>>> fans in the
>>>>> rooms beyond that point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just do what 95% of sparkies do, and dont bother with the fused spur.
>>>> There really is no need for it.
>>>
>>> When your house burns down because of a short in the fan leading to a
>>> fire, which would have blown a 3A fuse, you will have to convince
>>> your insurance company that the absent fuse would have made no
>>> difference when they refuse to pay out. Good luck with that.
>>
>> A short would trip the 6A breaker anyway. An overload would be
>> different, but a ventilation fan, even if stalled, would not overload
>> a 3A fuse.
>>
>> Sensibly, with such fans being connected to the lighting circuit to be
>> able to operate with the lights, the requirements should specify that
>> the fans should be suitable to be on a 6A circuit without additional
>> protection.
>>
>
>
> random question....
>
> If the entire lighing circuit is on LED bulbs only and there are no
> halogen or tungsten filaments or fluorescents, the load would be much
> lower so could one downrate the existing 6A MCB/RCBO down to 3A or do 3A
> RCBOs/MCBs not exist?

That was my thought too. Some 3A MCBs do exist but relatively rare.

I would have thought the fan would have it's own internal fuse, even a
non-replaceable one.

On 05/01/2024 11:57, Andy Burns wrote:
> SH wrote:
>
>> Swapping to a 3A MCB or RCBO would support a continuous current of 660
>> Watts at a supply voltage of 220 watts which is almost double the the
>> wattage assuming all lamps were all on at the same time.
>
> But if you suffered a power cut while they were all on, what sort of
> spike would all the PSUs in those LEDs generate?

That all depends on the PSU design.... I have a chart somewhere that
details something like 15 different PSU designs

Some PSU designs here:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Different-basic-converters-layout-a-Boost-b-Buckboost-c-Zeta-d-Cuk-Converter-and_fig5_365037354

On 03/01/2024 16:07, Tricky Dicky wrote:
>
> I am fitting a Manrose MF100T ventilation fan in our bathroom. This will
> have a 3 pole isolator outside the bathroom and the plan is to run it in
> conjunction with the bathroom light so that the fan comes on when the light
> is operated typical of many windowless bathrooms and en-suites in many
> modern houses.
>
> The issue is that the manufacturer specify’s a 3A max. fuse for live and
> switched live and of course the lighting circuit is 6A.
>
> One option is to fit a fused spur unit into the incoming feed for the
> bathroom but that means all lights beyond that point would now be protected
> by a 3A fuse and the issue is that there are at least 3 ceiling fans in the
> rooms beyond that point.
>
> An alternative is to take 3-core and E cable from the bathroom light as
> planned and using two FCU’s
> One for live and the other for switched live before running the rest of the
> cable to the 3-pole isolator.
>
> The trouble is that I have not seen this arrangement anywhere. My daughters
> new build has one bathroom, 2 en-suites and a cloakroom/WC all windowless
> and all with ventilators activated by the light switch and I know all the
> lighting circuits are 6A.
>
> So what to do?

Here are a number of options:

https://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Extractor_fan_wiring#Fused_Fan_supplies

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 03/01/2024 20:11, Theo wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> What happens next time work is done at the same premises? I thought
>> there was a 'last man out' rule making each successive electrician
>> responsible for the entire system - or is responsibility restricted to
>> the work done by each individual electrician? I have never been sure.
>
> You have to ensure your own work is to regs, but you don't have to update
> the work done by anyone else in the past.

So far, that is true.

> eg it's fine to add an extra
> socket on a circuit with rewireable fuses, even though the latter is not up
> to current regs.

but that is where it argument collapses. If you add a socket without RCD
protection, then you are not working to the current rules.

> If you were adding a new way in the consumer unit you
> couldn't install that with a rewireable fuse,

Actually you could if you really wanted to - there is no ban on having a
circuit with a rewireable fuse.

However if it were a socket circuit then it would need RCD protection,
as would any circuit with an unprotected cable run. So there are very
limited cases were you could install a new circuit with a re-wireable
fuse and no RCD.

(use of a rewireable also imposes a de-rating factor on the circuit
cables since that type of fuse is slower in operation in some cases)

> but you could put it behind an
> RCBO if that would fit in the old CU - if not you'd need to change the
> board.

A RCBO includes over current protection as well as a RCD. So there would
be no need for a fuse as well.

> Practically speaking you couldn't do it any other way, since J. Random
> Electrician has no idea what could be lurking in the parts they can't
> access. Otherwise you'd have to tear the house apart every time you changed
> a light fitting.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/