Kitchen ring

[eagleeye]

hi guys. just trying to find out if i am right about something. when installing new circuits in a kitchen (cooker, under floor heating and ring and lights) and the whole lot in on a 30mA RCD do i still need to cross bond the water pipes ? im sure you dont as the circuits are on an RCD. customer has no bond on gas or water and have told them about this. did ask me to do it but thinks i should of done at my expensive. any ideas ?

 

[m4tty]

You still need bonding to water and gas.

 

[acat]

Bonding required BS 7671 411 etc covers it but not at your expense.



Chris

 

[Guest123]

Yes as the lads have said main equipotential bonding is required regardless of RCD.

Supplementary bonding in bathrooms can be ommited if All circuits are RCD protected.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I think you may be getting your main and supplementary bonding mixed up. Main bonding is required if any installation work is carried out anywhere in the house, ie a 10mm cable to gas/oil and water from MET. Supplementary bonding is NOT required in a domestic kitchen whether RCD's are in place or not.

 

[leeweimaraner]

hi guys. just trying to find out if i am right about something. when installing new circuits in a kitchen (cooker, under floor heating and ring and lights) and the whole lot in on a 30mA RCD do i still need to cross bond the water pipes ? im sure you dont as the circuits are on an RCD. customer has no bond on gas or water and have told them about this. did ask me to do it but thinks i should of done at my expensive. any ideas ?

Hi mate before you carry out any work on this property you need to point out these bonds arnt in place,if you do the job whatever it is,you as an approved contractor should have upgraded the bonds 10mm for gas 10mm for water, to comply with new legislation hope this helps

 

[Deleted member 9648]

.

QUOTE Supplementary bonding in bathrooms can be ommited if All circuits are RCD protected.[/QUOTE]

There must also be a continuity reading of less than 1667 ohms between conductive and extranuous conductive parts within the special location for supplementary bonding to be omitted.

 

[eagleeye]

Hi mate thanks for your reply.I know the bonding should be done and i would do it but if they are not going to pay me for it i will not. Plus its a right pain in the arse as well. Would you say i am breaking the law by not doing it even though it would be for nothing

 

[Deleted member 9648]

The reason main bonding needs to be in place is that it is fundamental to the safety of the existing installation and also any any additions and alterations you carry out. Therefore any work you carry out you are effectively leaving in an unsafe condition. The point is you should establish whether bonding is present before starting work,and if not tell the customer that it is an essential part of the work you are carrying out. If they refuse to pay for it you can either do it anyway in order to get the rest of the work,or walk away. Bs 7671 is not as yet a statutory document...but as the work you carried out is in a kitchen it comes under part P, so yes by leaving an unsafe installation and not presumably not certifying you are breaking the law.

 

[flukey]

Hi mate thanks for your reply.I know the bonding should be done and i would do it but if they are not going to pay me for it i will not. Plus its a right pain in the arse as well. Would you say i am breaking the law by not doing it even though it would be for nothing

thats not an option you either explain it needs doing when you first price the job or if you have already done the work looks like it will be at your expense just so you can certificate the work you have done otherwise it wont comply.
best of luck with this one

 

[Eggster71]

Hi mate thanks for your reply.I know the bonding should be done and i would do it but if they are not going to pay me for it i will not. Plus its a right pain in the arse as well. Would you say i am breaking the law by not doing it even though it would be for nothing

As they said, you'll be breaking the law!
That should have been among the first things you checked when you first looked at the job, it's one of the most common "failures" I come across and would be classed a category1 (requiring urgent attention) on any periodic test.