Minor Works.. No RCD on Circuit ?

[TPES]

A customer has a big bedroom with only 1 pendant in the middle of the room, He asks you to make 2 lights in this room, making 2 pendants one either end of the bedroom.

What our my options to comply with 17th as the CU is to 16th so lighting is not RCD protected?

Also as its only minor works and in a bedroom, its not notifiable... Correct?


But still needs a MWC giving to the customer..
Also it is still permissable to carry out minor works if bonding is not present in the installation..

 

[claire_r]

i would have thought its an alteration so needs to be rcd protected and brought up to 17th edition.

 

[TPES]

What would be the cheapest option for the customer do you think...??

As said many times, for small jobs like this if its going to cost the customer alot you will end up loosing work..

Do most of you just tell the customer for what seems like a small quick job is actually going to cost quite abit and if they say No, then just take it on the chin..

Its just a "P off" it has to be this way for the customer and the electrician... But i know.. regs are regs!

 

[xraytek]

What our my options to comply with 17th as the CU is to 16th so lighting is not RCD protected?

1) In my opinion a note on the certificate will be enough if an RCD is only providing supplementary protection. Thats how I interperet 131.8 anyway, and will be interested in other opinions.
2) Replace the lighting MCB with an RCBO

Also as its only minor works and in a bedroom, its not notifiable... Correct?

I believe so

But still needs a MWC giving to the customer..

Yes

Also it is still permissable to carry out minor works if bonding is not present in the installation..

No because you will NOT be complying with regulation 131.8

 

[TPES]

No because you will NOT be complying with regulation 131.8

Ive been told by others that if its Minor works not in a special location, then if bonding isnt up to scratch you can still continue the works.. Have i been informed wrong then..?

 

[xraytek]

There is a big difference between not being up to scratch, and not being present at all

 

[TPES]

There is a big difference between not being up to scratch, and not being present at all

Ha ha, I agree!!



I got this from an "Inspection & Testing" Text Book under the section, Minor Works Certs..

Confirmation of bonding​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Has bonding been installed? If not, this should be
pointed out to the client, and identified in the comments section of the
certificate. It is still permissible to carry out minor works if bonding is not present​

in the installation.

 

[chocolate]

If it is a 16th Edition CCU, then as long as main bonding is compliant with 16th edition regs, then you are half way there. Of course, if lighting isn't on RCD, then you will have to ensure supplementary bonding is in place.

If you put lights on RCBO, then check main bonding meets 17th edition.

HOWEVER, if new cable joining pendant ( original ) to pendant ( new ) is above the ceiling, then does the RCD requirement still apply ??????

BUT, if 2nd pendant is to be wired so that it switches independantly to the first, then cable drop to switch will possibly require RCD protection.

 

[TPES]

If it is a 16th Edition CCU, then as long as main bonding is compliant with 16th edition regs, then you are half way there. Of course, if lighting isn't on RCD, then you will have to ensure supplementary bonding is in place.

So aslong as incoming services are bonded then i am ok? And No RCD is needed? Sounds 16th to me...

 

[electricAl]

Sid, never be afraid to ring Elecsa if you have a specific question such as this.

The Techline guys will happilly put you on the right track.

Jeff & Steve are easy to talk to (if you can get a word in ) & very practical.

 

[Mark2009]

Sid, never be afraid to ring Elecsa if you have a specific question such as this.

The Techline guys will happilly put you on the right track.

Jeff & Steve are easy to talk to (if you can get a word in ) & very practical.

Hi
I have the same problem we have a very old fuse board (MEM 5amp fuse for lighting) i am waiting to be inspected by Napit and have to show one job Ring Main or two jobs if not Ring Main.

I have no RCD which is common in most old houses but i cannot see how to get around this problem to show two jobs without an RCD.

Its states in Regs 740.415.1 Aditional Protection All final Circuits

1) Lighting

2) socket-outlets rated up to 32 A, and

30 Mobile equipment connected by means of flexiable cable or cord with a current-carrying capacity up to 32A shall be protected by RCDs having the characteristics specified in regulation 415.11

Just any advice

Thanks

Mark

 

[xraytek]

In the case of the original post, the senario involves adding a pendant to an upstairs lighting circuit.
This would not need to involve concealling cables <50mm so would not require an RCD as far as I am aware. If there are any other conditions except concealed cables that call for the need of an RCD on a domestic lighting circuit then I would be interested to know.

However the existing wiring probably does have cables buried in the walls, and so for that circuit to comply with the 17th edition an RCD will be required.

The reason I believe a note on the certificate is enough is because the BS7671 does not state that existing circuits need to be brought up to the latest edition. It only states that the existing circuit must be suitable for any additional load, and that earthing and bonding must be adequate.
That doesnt mean to say I would not recommend an RCD. I am just saying that in this case the option of a note on the certificate is there if the customer does not want to pay for an RCD.

Scheme providers may have their own rules but all I am doing is giving my interpretation of what the red book states.

Its worth bearing in mind that when regs get updated they are not retrospective, so only the additional wiring by you need comply with the latest edition. So if you have fitted socket outlets then they must be RCD protected even if the rest of the house isn't.

I would like to state again that this is just my interpretation for what its worth.
If in doubt speak to your scheme provider as recommended earlier in this post.

 

[andekoch]

I agree with xraytek, only the new needs to comply with the regs as long as the existing can cope with the addition. A note as to what does not comply on the existing is required under the comments on existing.
There should always be main bonding (even if to a previous version of BS7671) and if not you should install it before doing your work, ie it is part of the price for your job.

 

[martspark]

In the case of the original post, the senario involves adding a pendant to an upstairs lighting circuit.
This would not need to involve concealling cables <50mm so would not require an RCD as far as I am aware. If there are any other conditions except concealed cables that call for the need of an RCD on a domestic lighting circuit then I would be interested to know

If light cct supplys bathroom rcd needed for that aswell.
saying the customer dont want to pay aint good enuff
If we add to cct we hav to get cct to 17th upto scratch inc bonding tho 6mm ok if impractible to upgrade to 10mm

 

[davemorris]

as far as i aware you only have to make your work you do upto current regulations. So if your cable isnt concealed in a wall less than 50mm it doesnt need rcd protection? I know some people so you have to take responsibility for the circuit you are working on. But this proves costly for the customer and as long as your not making the circuit your working on worse than it already is then theres nothing wrong with it. You can issue a MWC on work that doesnt comply with regs. Example of this is if you were to change an accessory i.e a light fitting in a bedroom you dont have to make the circuit the light fitting is on up to date to 17th edition as this would be far to costly for the customer. Just note on your MWC that there is no rcd protection