Danger notice.

[Bobble23]

Hi,

I was called to a customer's today who'd had a spark in last week who left her with a danger notice (she wanted me to quote for the remedial work). The notice said that the danger was a 16th edition consumer unit which needed upgrading (nothing wrong with it, just 16th ed instead of 17th) and not all of the circuits (i.e. the lighting circuits) RCD protected.

As far as I know the regs aren't retrospective, so as long as the installation complied with the 16th ed at the time there's no danger requiring a formal danger notice. Have I got this wrong?

Thanks.

 

[Risteard]

RCDs on ALL the circuits can with other criteria allow supplementary bonding to be omitted altogether.

After proving that it does not require supplementary bonding as it already effectively is, or that it doesn't require it. However that doesn't mean that if all circuits aren't RCD protected that it can still be omitted. I think that is ignoring the reason for the change from the 16th Edition to the 17th Edition. The 17th does not permit the omission of supplementary bonding where all circuits of the location are not RCD protected.

Personally I would rather rely on supplementary bonding than RCDs, but that's a separate issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Stated that very same wonderment many times on here!! lol!! Perhaps we were all so much tougher, or thicker skinned in those days, ...than those of the modern, ''I want it all, ...and i want it Now'' era!!

LOL. And they don't mention the failure rate of RCDs either!