I am sorry could you point where in the regulations does it state "If the end user says he does not believe the potential for damage warrants the cost of protection then it is not required"? No its a statement of fact, my point is in even the smallest house the less than ÂŁ30 protection will be protecting at least ÂŁ5k of potential damage. Thus the cost of protection being under ÂŁ30 will generally always warrant its requirement.
I can think of situations where say room for a consumer unit is limited so fitting one would mean relocating a consumer unit or having to make big changes, so would massively increase the cost of having to fit an SPD then there is an argument.
If a customer says they dont want the cost of RCD's is that also ok also?
It doesn’t and nor did I in any way suggest it does.
I detailed word for word the actual regulation ahead of this, and then added my own commentary/comments such as the section you mention, in much the same way as others have done, yourself included.
The regulation uses the term warrant and not more than/less than for very good reason, because it is not just the ÂŁ cost of replacement vs ÂŁ cost of protection which needs to be considered.
This has been mentioned by others already.
If it was it would be simple, but ridiculous; some bit of Tech cost ÂŁ31.00 the protection costs ÂŁ30 so the protection is mandatory, but the customer then gets a discount to ÂŁ29.00 so the protection is no longer required??
There are so many factors to consider, there is no tech whatsoever – so £0 hence on first sight it doesn’t warrant the cost of protection; however, the customer knows that actually any unavailability would have severe impact to them, so in spite of the £ cost of replacement vs £ cost of protection being completely in favour of omitting the protection, in actuality the customer knows the protection is warranted.
Similarly, the customer appears to have lots of stuff, but it is provided on rent, any failures mean a brand-new replacement at no cost to the customer! – clearly this doesn’t warrant SPD protection. Alternatively, the customer has an assured new-for-old insurance policy – again any failures result in them getting new tech for free (Saves them having to “Spill” a drink into the TV)….. The list of circumstances is endless!
Who is able to make this decision – the balance between the cost to the customer based on their personal circumstances, experiences of previous incidents at that property etc – it certainly isn’t the electrician trying to upsell that can do this, it is of course the customer themselves.
Irrespective of one’s own bias on SPD being a good/bad thing the regulations make it clear, not fitting SPD in a single dwelling where the cost of protection is not warranted is completely in-line with the regulations.
As to good/bad I have differing opinions, I have SPD fitted at my own home, I recommend SPD on every job (not usually residential work – I work on larger projects usually); however, I have come to the belief that in the long term they are going to be useless.
In general SPD can only withstand one major surge, so inevitably where the protection is needed after the first Major surge (or perhaps many minor surges) the installation is back to being without a working SPD, and since at homes absolutely no one routinely checks the condition of the consumer unit on a regular basis – it would remain unnoticed.
And whilst this is my conclusion, based on the technical facts, it doesn’t change the actual written regulations, which we all must adhere to.
As for a customer not wanting RCD, yes you check whether it may be omitted in accordance with the regs such as 434.3 for example - and if the regs permit it then yes you may omit it just like omitting SPD where the regs allow it.
