A 45A celing isolation switch for a shower that I got from Wickes last week
seems faulty. It is very stiff and sometimes doesn't switch from on to off.

I'm wondering if simply getting Wickes to replace it will solve the problem
- of if I should opt for a totally different make.

Jim

On Saturday, 27 June 2015 11:45:40 UTC+1, Jim x321x wrote:
A 45A celing isolation switch for a shower that I got from Wickes last week
seems faulty. It is very stiff and sometimes doesn't switch from on to off.

I'm wondering if simply getting Wickes to replace it will solve the problem
- of if I should opt for a totally different make.

Get your money back and get one of a decent make.


Owain

Jim x321x wrote:
A 45A celing isolation switch for a shower that I got from Wickes last week
seems faulty. It is very stiff and sometimes doesn't switch from on to off.

I'm wondering if simply getting Wickes to replace it will solve the problem
- of if I should opt for a totally different make.

Jim

Seems to be the norm for all the cheap ones. I found dismantling it and
fettling the plastic plus some grease worked for one of mine.

On 27/06/15 12:14, wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 11:45:40 UTC+1, Jim x321x wrote:
A 45A celing isolation switch for a shower that I got from Wickes last week
seems faulty. It is very stiff and sometimes doesn't switch from on to off.

I'm wondering if simply getting Wickes to replace it will solve the problem
- of if I should opt for a totally different make.

Get your money back and get one of a decent make.

Yep.

I hate Wickes rebadging stuff - I want to know what I'm buying.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 27/06/15 12:14, wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2015 11:45:40 UTC+1, Jim x321x wrote:
A 45A celing isolation switch for a shower that I got from Wickes last
week
seems faulty. It is very stiff and sometimes doesn't switch from on to
off.

I'm wondering if simply getting Wickes to replace it will solve the
problem
- of if I should opt for a totally different make.

Get your money back and get one of a decent make.

Yep.

I hate Wickes rebadging stuff - I want to know what I'm buying.


So no different in this case to buying Newlec or Denmans electrical
wholesalers rebaded stuff then?

Wickes used to (they might still do) use GET for their rebadged stuff.


--
Adam

In article ,
Capitol writes:
Jim x321x wrote:
A 45A celing isolation switch for a shower that I got from Wickes last week
seems faulty. It is very stiff and sometimes doesn't switch from on to off.

I'm wondering if simply getting Wickes to replace it will solve the problem
- of if I should opt for a totally different make.

Jim

Seems to be the norm for all the cheap ones. I found dismantling it and
fettling the plastic plus some grease worked for one of mine.

A shower switch is a case where you really do need to get a good quality
one which doesn't self-head to destruction. However, even a good one
will self heat to destruction if the workmanship of the wiring connections
is anything less than perfect.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

.....but aren't they intended for occassional use to isolate the shower and
not for routine switching? I would think you could pull them off the
ceiling if used frequently.

DerbyBorn wrote in
2.236:

....but aren't they intended for occassional use to isolate the shower
and not for routine switching? I would think you could pull them off
the ceiling if used frequently.

Rightly or wrongly, in my previous house, I used to use the isolation
switch to switch the shower on and off every time! My rationale was that
it's cheaper to wear out an £8 isolation switch than the rotary switch on
the shower unit, which, if broken, would probably require the replacement
of the entire shower unit. I also liked doing it that way because by the
time I got into the shower cubicle the water was already running at the
desired temperature.

Apart from shortening the life of the isolation switch, is there any known
reason why one should not do this?

Anyway, I took the duff Wickes' switch back and got one from B&Q instead.
The B&Q one cost £1 more, but it works perfectly. The B&Q switch looks
identical to the Wickes one (apart from the packaging), so it may even have
come from the same factory.

Jim

On 28/06/15 20:46, AL_n wrote:
DerbyBorn wrote in
2.236:

....but aren't they intended for occassional use to isolate the shower
and not for routine switching? I would think you could pull them off
the ceiling if used frequently.

Rightly or wrongly, in my previous house, I used to use the isolation
switch to switch the shower on and off every time! My rationale was that
it's cheaper to wear out an £8 isolation switch than the rotary switch on
the shower unit, which, if broken, would probably require the replacement
of the entire shower unit. I also liked doing it that way because by the
time I got into the shower cubicle the water was already running at the
desired temperature.

Apart from shortening the life of the isolation switch, is there any known
reason why one should not do this?


For some particular design you might deprive the shower of a controlled
cool down cycle - but this is likely to be a feature of a modern
computer controlled unit, not an older simpler shower.

In short, if the water runs with the power off, it's almost certainly OK.

On 28 Jun 2015 19:46:55 GMT, AL_n wrote:

DerbyBorn wrote in
2.236:

....but aren't they intended for occassional use to isolate the shower
and not for routine switching? I would think you could pull them off
the ceiling if used frequently.

Rightly or wrongly, in my previous house, I used to use the isolation
switch to switch the shower on and off every time! My rationale was that
it's cheaper to wear out an £8 isolation switch than the rotary switch on
the shower unit, which, if broken, would probably require the replacement
of the entire shower unit. I also liked doing it that way because by the
time I got into the shower cubicle the water was already running at the
desired temperature.

Apart from shortening the life of the isolation switch, is there any known
reason why one should not do this?

I've been doing it, with an MK switch, for several years and the switch
seems to be OK.


--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:50:40 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 28/06/15 20:46, AL_n wrote:
DerbyBorn wrote in
2.236:

....but aren't they intended for occassional use to isolate the shower
and not for routine switching? I would think you could pull them off
the ceiling if used frequently.

Rightly or wrongly, in my previous house, I used to use the isolation
switch to switch the shower on and off every time! My rationale was that
it's cheaper to wear out an £8 isolation switch than the rotary switch on
the shower unit, which, if broken, would probably require the replacement
of the entire shower unit. I also liked doing it that way because by the
time I got into the shower cubicle the water was already running at the
desired temperature.

Apart from shortening the life of the isolation switch, is there any known
reason why one should not do this?


For some particular design you might deprive the shower of a controlled
cool down cycle - but this is likely to be a feature of a modern
computer controlled unit, not an older simpler shower.

In short, if the water runs with the power off, it's almost certainly OK.

Turn to Cold just before the end of the shower, switch off by pull switch.
The switch is just outside Zone 1 and round a corner - within reach of a
long arm but away from spray.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

When I had an electric shower, I really wished I could buy a unit that I
could install in the loft or under the bath as it would have made
installing a lot easier and such a unit wouldn't need to compromise
robustness by trying to look stylish and compact. I believe you can get
them now.