No RCD

[telectrix]

thanks for that. that is a nice get out if i can get away with it. was my first thought. just modify the bedroom circuits and code 2 the lack of RCDs, noting that the work has been done on the understanding that it is non-compliant pending the upgrade of the CU

 

[Sav]

Morning chaps,
I dont know if you get the "Professional Electrician" every month, but inside the Sept issue, there is a section of amendments that MAY be put forward with regards to BS7671.
One of them is Protection for Safety, Chapter 41, reg 411.3.3 regardding addtional protection.

Basically, any minor works associated with existing socket outlets circuits which have no RCD, should not require such protection where the designer (us) is satisfied that there would be no increased risk from those works.

So, you could have 2 houses in same street,both have minor work on socket outlets, one electrician puts in RCD protection and charges accordingly, the other says its safe as it is !!

What ever next !!
Have a great and safe day everyone,

Sav

 

[malcolmsanford]

Your doing a PIR as well then Telectrix?

If your going to note departures from the regs as in 120.3 and note it on the EIC I would be very careful and hope nothing happens in beween. The sockets will be of use to ordinary persons intended for general use and so falls under the reg 411.3.3(i) and you will have to prove by omitting your installtion of that reg it is making it safer.

It goes again with the same for the lights you are fitting and burying cable in the wall. You will be departing from reg 522.6.6 and will have to prove if anything happens, that by omitting this regualtion you are making the installation safer.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Morning chaps,
I dont know if you get the "Professional Electrician" every month, but inside the Sept issue, there is a section of amendments that MAY be put forward with regards to BS7671.
One of them is Protection for Safety, Chapter 41, reg 411.3.3 regardding addtional protection.

Basically, any minor works associated with existing socket outlets circuits which have no RCD, should not require such protection where the designer (us) is satisfied that there would be no increased risk from those works.

So, you could have 2 houses in same street,both have minor work on socket outlets, one electrician puts in RCD protection and charges accordingly, the other says its safe as it is !!

What ever next !!
Have a great and safe day everyone,

Sav

Great post Sav, just what is happening here now. Why all of a sudden are the NICEIC and such saying that as electricians we can pick and choose what regs we like and don't like.

To me reg 411.3.3 is not open to interpretation as it gives examples for what is required and then exemptions to those requirements, so pretty cut and dried. I think we are going down a pretty dangerous road with this. I would not like to be standing in a court of law one day trying to convince a judge that I decided that the regs were not applicable and my was is better.

 

[telectrix]

thanks to all for your useful posts. on consideration, i think i will go down this route: divert both ring main and lighting circiuts from existing 3036, into separate enclosure comprising 2 x RCBOs, one for each cct. this would mean my work complies . just hope landing light not got borrowed neutral! the 2 RCBOs can be re-used in new board when upgrade is done.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Your doing a PIR as well then Telectrix?

If your going to note departures from the regs as in 120.3 and note it on the EIC I would be very careful and hope nothing happens in beween. The sockets will be of use to ordinary persons intended for general use and so falls under the reg 411.3.3(i) and you will have to prove by omitting your installtion of that reg it is making it safer.



It goes again with the same for the lights you are fitting and burying cable in the wall. You will be departing from reg 522.6.6 and will have to prove if anything happens, that by omitting this regualtion you are making the installation safer.

Not going to argue with that,it is clearly the correct proceedure......BUT,remember that just 3 years ago NONE of the work to be carried out in the bedroom would have required RCD protection,are all installations carried out prior to 2008 unsafe?....Bs 7671 is not statutory,IMO the installation as described would not have it's safety compromised by a lack of RCD protection on a temporary basis,and it could justifiably be omitted until the protection to the entire installation is upgraded. If this is going to be in say,less than a year,is the additional cost of providing short term and pointless rcd protection justified?

 

[telectrix]

agree with you there , wirepuller. It's all down to not compromising the safety of the installation"as was", and I think I would be justified in completing a MWC and noting on it the lack of RCD protection pending upgrade of CU

 

[SimpleSimon]

Just seen an unswitched RCD spur you can get. Could you possibly put this at the start of the ring and that protects your ring??

 

[telectrix]

may as well RCBO at board

 

[willy fixit]

I'm no expert but IMHO - quote for the hassle or walk away.

 

[telectrix]

done it. first fixed bedroom. quoted extra £150 for 2 RCBOs downstream of fuses ( these can be re-used in new CU when done. client does a lot of PCwork so likes idea of RCBos so as not to have other ccts. down if RCD trips. sorted