New Zealand 16th edition consumer unit & lack of 30m RCD

[Mike66]

Hi Guys

After some opinions.

Looked at a consumer unit today installed cu in 2008 under the 16th edition ie split load CU usual configuration cooker, immersion & lights on non RCD & shower & sockets on 30mA RCD side. The reason for the replacement cu in 2008 was to update the existing system

The customer recently had an electrical test & inspection carried out by the firm who installed the cu in 2008.

This cu was replaced just prior to the dual RCD requirement.

On their test they picked up that some of the circuits have no 30mA RCD ie circuits 1-5 on the non RCD side & have coded this as a code 2.

As you can imagine the customer is spitting teeth that a CU fitted in 2008 is now deemed to be potentially dangerous

Any thoughts?

 

[Octopus]

They should be C3's

 

[Richard Burns]

Sub surface unprotected cables without an RCD would be a C3 for me, it is still protected by the MCB, not as safe as it could be but still.

 

[Sintra]

C3 if the installation was installed and still complies to the 16th.

 

[telectrix]

as above posts. a C3. the buggers are trying to make work.

 

[thomas-1981]

This is the kind of thing that gives the trade a bad name. Why have they coded these items c2? Have they given notes on their reasoning?

 

[Mike66]

The customer told me the lad who tested it was only 17, not too sure about that though, it was an NICEIC approved company nothing wrong with that I am too, but surely no one would send out a 17 year old kid to carry out testing, unless he went on a 5week course LOL.

This company does a lot of social housing & I think they are making a living out of changing these CU's

 

[Redvanman]

Have you checked the supp bonding in the bathroom

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Hi Guys

After some opinions.

Looked at a consumer unit today installed cu in 2008 under the 16th edition ie split load CU usual configuration cooker, immersion & lights on non RCD & shower & sockets on 30mA RCD side. The reason for the replacement cu in 2008 was to update the existing system

The customer recently had an electrical test & inspection carried out by the firm who installed the cu in 2008.

This cu was replaced just prior to the dual RCD requirement.

On their test they picked up that some of the circuits have no 30mA RCD ie circuits 1-5 on the non RCD side & have coded this as a code 2.

As you can imagine the customer is spitting teeth that a CU fitted in 2008 is now deemed to be potentially dangerous

Any thoughts?

yet more chimpish behaviour from monkeys...
tell em to bog off....theres nowt wrong with it..
as has been said so many many times before in here..its a 3....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

The customer told me the lad who tested it was only 17, not too sure about that though, it was an NICEIC approved company nothing wrong with that I am too, but surely no one would send out a 17 year old kid to carry out testing, unless he went on a 5week course LOL.

This company does a lot of social housing & I think they are making a living out of changing these CU's

eh?...lolffs...lol...lol...

 

[Mike66]

Have you checked the supp bonding in the bathroom

They changed the cu in 2008 so they should have checked & it should have complied at the time

 

[telectrix]

lofty strikes again.

 

[Redvanman]

They changed the cu in 2008 so they should have checked & it should have complied at the time

If done properly the the EICR should state if the supp bonds done. If so then the bathroom circuits are only a C3.
if the supp bonds not done they havnet done the job correct in the first place and she should have some recall.
she should still have the original test cert for CU change.
Tell her to go back to them and put it right

 

[Octopus]

lofty strikes again.

He's Lordy now, haven't you noticed?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

He's Lordy now, haven't you noticed?

Murdoch....theres no nead to put that gymp on a stand.....