A Couple of Quickies!

[Barker]

Chaps and Chapesses

I am fitting a light into a loft as part of my NICEIC Assesment but just have a couple of issues that I am wondering about. So I was hoping that you Wise and Wonderful people Would be able to offer some advice.

1, Is there any ruling about how far from an enclosed water tank a light should be fitted. I have Scoured the big red book but cannot see anything that says it should be X distance apart.

2, The house is only two years old and is fitted with a split load MK board the Sockets are all RCD protected but the lighting and everything else is covered by MCB's, should i be fitting a RCBO?

Cheers Folks

 

[not clever]

1, Is there any ruling about how far from an enclosed water tank a light should be fitted. I have Scoured the big red book but cannot see anything that says it should be X distance apart.

Just use common sense, no reg for this unless you go for "accessory appropriate for external influences" at a push.

2, The house is only two years old and is fitted with a split load MK board the Sockets are all RCD protected but the lighting and everything else is covered by MCB's, should i be fitting a RCBO?

I would, if you dont you'll get a revisit & dont be tempted to bang the lights onto the rcd side, becauser the assessor will just quote along the lines of "seperation of circuits with regard to rcd when it trips"

 

[Barker]

Cheers Not Clever

Putting an RCBO in isn't notifiable is it?

 

[andyb]

If you are running your cable on the surface which as it's in the loft space I suspect it is, there is no need for an rcbo.
You are only responsible for your work from where you extend the circuit.
So, as long as there is adequate circuit protection and the Zs is below max you are ok.
Dont forget all your other checks.

 

[Spudnik]

If you are running your cable on the surface which as it's in the loft space I suspect it is, there is no need for an rcbo.
You are only responsible for your work from where you extend the circuit.
So, as long as there is adequate circuit protection and the Zs is below max you are ok.
Dont forget all your other checks.

Whilst i agree 100% with Andy, there is a big debate at the moment about this.

Any circuit that is extended or modified MUST now be RCD protected.

There is a link somewhere but im having trouble finding it.

Ill post it when/if i manage to find it.

 

[johnnyb]

Yeh, agree lighting rcd protected, but if you think the guy will have an issue with the fitting, install an IP rated fitting, covers you always up then, + rcd somewhere suggest an FCU .

 

[andyb]

Whilst i agree 100% with Andy, there is a big debate at the moment about this.

Any circuit that is extended or modified MUST now be RCD protected.

There is a link somewhere but im having trouble finding it.

Ill post it when/if i manage to find it.

I agree that there is a debate Jason, but I have yet to read anything that convinces me of the need to fit an rcd retrospectivly.
This is only my take on it and if anyone can post a link showing otherwise I would be grateful.

You are responsible for your wiring. If this is surface and does not run in a room containing a bath or shower then there is no requirement for rcd protection.

 

[not clever]

Whilst i agree 100% with Andy, there is a big debate at the moment about this.

Any circuit that is extended or modified MUST now be RCD protected.

There is a link somewhere but im having trouble finding it.

Ill post it when/if i manage to find it.

I saw the same link so gave NICey technical desk a call as I was unsure & they confirmed you now change a circuit you should rcd the whole circuit if not already done.
Cant think where I saw it now, will try to find it after putting kids to bed.

 

[DPG]

There's an article in 'Wiring Matters' magazine from the IET which covers exactly this (Spring 09 issue 7). Yep, it says the whole circuit must comply, not just the addition. interesting reading. Daz

 

[Guest123]

There's an article in 'Wiring Matters' magazine from the IET which covers exactly this (Spring 09 issue 7)

Read it today funnily enough.

 

[Spudnik]

There's an article in 'Wiring Matters' magazine from the IET which covers exactly this (Spring 09 issue 7). Yep, it says the whole circuit must comply, not just the addition. interesting reading. Daz

Cheers for that.

I knew i had seen it somewhere!!!!!!!!!!

Ill get me coat...

 

[andyb]

Can someone post a link or copy the main points of the article to this thread please.

My interpretation is based on an niceic seminar in December on the 17th edition, their head of training gave the main presentation and he was adamant that you do not need to fit an rcd in this situation.

It created quite a discussion after in the Q&A section, there was a couple of technical help line chaps there who agreed.

Now I know from the 15th then 16th that the interpretation of the regs change, but this was only 3 months ago and I would like to see any relevant article.

 

[andyb]

Having spoken to the niceic tech line yesterday he pointed me in the direction of a couple or regs.

131.8 It must be ascertained that the rating and condition of existing equipment is adequate for the altered circumstances.

610.4 Deals with the alteration only and basically say it should comply with the regs.

So his take was that this instance did not require rcd protection.

As I said in an earlier post all other conditions must allow this, but as it is a loft, as long as the cable is not taken through a joist and reg 522.6.5 is adhered to I do not think an rcd is needed.

That’s not to say that you should not fit one, it does no harm. But it is not required by the regs.

 

[Guest123]

Hey chaps.

I found a link to a PDF of the issue of Wiring Matters in question.

Click on the link, and then "start download" then "open" to view.

Cheers.

Additions and alterations.pdf

 

[andyb]

Thanks for that link Lenny.
I'm not sure that it's conclusive, I'll have to read it again.
The scenario he puts forward would need rcd protection anyway 411.3.3
I think it boils down to the interpretation 131.8 and if that requires the existing circuit to be brought up to date.

 

[pushrod]

Hey chaps.

I found a link to a PDF of the issue of Wiring Matters in question.

Click on the link, and then "start download" then "open" to view.

Cheers.

Additions and alterations.pdf

Interesting read but i can't help but thinking that if it is correct that the law is an --- to quote a well known phrase. It sounds like you can't improve a potentially dangerous thing unless you correct the whole thing. Which in many cases is going to mean a new consumer unit. The customer wants to make an improvement , say an extra socket to prevent over loading and trailing leads but can't afford a new consumer unit. This means that the qualified and bona fide electrician has to walk away from the job which could have resulted in the situation becoming safer, having first wasted time and money to go out and inspect and quote. Customer wants job done so turns to unqualified cowboy . How can this be considered to be sensible . Things like this make my blood boil. Somebody please tell me i am interpreting this wrongly.

 

[andyb]

You'r interpreting this wrongly.

 

[Spudnik]

Indeed.

What we are unsure of is that if any circuit that is added to or altered etc must it be brought up to date with for eg and RCD protecting that circuit or just from the addition onwards?

This could be achieved by either fitting a new 17th CU or breaking out the tail from the existing CU and installing them in a separate enclosure with RCD protection.

What Andy is saying is that he has been informed that its only that PART of the circuit that must be brought up to date, and not the whole circuit.

Must admit, whenever i have had to do alterations and additions, i have always put an RCD upfront.

But thats me and others may do different.

 

[pushrod]

You'r interpreting this wrongly.

do you mean it or are you just trying to cheer me?

In the example in the article they say that you can't put an extra socket in the ring if it is not already RCD protected, without then going onto protect the whole circuit with an RCD. If it is an old CU that would then involve either changing it or putting a stand alone RCD on to just that circuit - neither of which would be cheap and could put the customer off.
If it is not saying that what is it saying?

Surely an RCD protected spur would be a cheaper and more sensible option if the customer is short of cash

(EDIT was writing this while Jason made his post)

Indeed.

What we are unsure of is that if any circuit that is added to or altered etc must it be brought up to date with for eg and RCD protecting that circuit or just from the addition onwards?

This could be achieved by either fitting a new 17th CU or breaking out the tail from the existing CU and installing them in a separate enclosure with RCD protection.

What Andy is saying is that he has been informed that its only that PART of the circuit that must be brought up to date, and not the whole circuit.

.

The article that lenny linked to says its the whole of the installation/circuit that must be brought up to date and that if not, you should not do the job

 

[Spudnik]

The article that lenny linked to says its the whole of the installation/circuit that must be brought up to date and that if not, you should not do the job

Thats what i was saying i do.

But Andy has spoken to the NIC and they told him its only the part thats been worked on.

Not sure how you are supposed to do this on a RFC or if you are extending a radial and the new cable is less than 50mm etc etc.

 

[andyb]

Thats what i was saying i do.

But Andy has spoken to the NIC and they told him its only the part thats been worked on.

Not sure how you are supposed to do this on a RFC or if you are extending a radial and the new cable is less than 50mm etc etc.

If you are installing a socket or the new cable is less than 50mm etc etc, then you have to fit an rcd as per the regs.
The op was about a light fitted in the loft.
My point was that the way I read it you do not have to fit an rcd because other parts of the existing circuit is in a wall less than 50mm deep with no earth protection.

 

[pushrod]

Thats what i was saying i do.

It just seems mad that you have to turn down a job that could lead to an improvement in safety just because it does not correct everything. The customer then turns to someone who is not qualified.

Is there not a body or union or something that can look into this type of scenario for the electrician. It just seems to be encouraging a black market in illicit/cowboy electrical work (if you know what i mean)

My point was that the way I read it you do not have to fit an rcd because other parts of the existing circuit is in a wall less than 50mm deep with no earth protection.

Your point on page 1 of this thread is sensble IMO. The article that lenny linked to says that is not the case though the whole of the circuit would have to be protected and that pointing this out to the customer on a certificate would not be a defence. In my own mind i am not 100% convinced of the author's arguments as BS 7671:2008 are guidelines and not statutory, so to my mind you could argue that your work could be improving safety even though it did not meet those guidelines - even if you did have to do it in a court of law

 

[Spudnik]

If you are installing a socket or the new cable is less than 50mm etc etc, then you have to fit an rcd as per the regs.
The op was about a light fitted in the loft.
My point was that the way I read it you do not have to fit an rcd because other parts of the existing circuit is in a wall less than 50mm deep with no earth protection.

Absolutely agree, however, how do we go about this if we are extending or altering a few sockets on an existing RFC or extending a cooker radial circuit to the other side of the room that has no RCD protection?


Pushrod, there are many, many things in this industry that are totally incomprehensible, but most of the time, you just kinda accept it and do the best you can.

There will ALWAYS be unqualified or unregistered tradesmen in ANY industry doing what they please.

 

[andyb]

Absolutely agree, however, how do we go about this if we are extending or altering a few sockets on an existing RFC or extending a cooker radial circuit to the other side of the room that has no RCD protection?


You have to fit an rcd as per my previous post.

 

[Spudnik]

You have to fit an rcd as per my previous post.

Indeed. I really must learn to read. A bit more.

I have been at work all day!!