PIR "no RCD on shower circuit"

[Jazza]

A friend of mine has had a company do a PIR on there property, must be renting it out or something.

They were told they needed RCD protection on there shower circuit as an urgent requirement.

Is it possible to fit an RCD after the 45a mcb for the shower circuit. The cable is surface mounted with loads of slack and as they dont want to change there old school Consumer Unit.

 

[DurhamSparky]

The cable is surface mounted

providing the area has been suplementary bonded and its Surface through out the run no RCD is required!!

 

[telectrix]

agreed

 

[DurhamSparky]

sounds like a 5 day wonder did the PIR!!

 

[tonys]

Bonding must also be connected with any circuits within the room as well.

 

[Jazza]

thanks for the reply. Unfortunately it is only surface mounted in the cupboard where the cu is. I put that info in because there is a bit of slack on the cable and an rcd could fit in nice between board and shower.

 

[Jazza]

lol, it did seem a little like that, company was gas elec. supplementary bonding is present but cable is not surface mounted the whole way just can see it as the only cable going up the wall. meaning the rest are buried and someone must of added the shower in at a later date.

 

[DurhamSparky]

Ah!! ok removed situation entirely!!! how long it been installed is next question!

 

[telectrix]

wil the board take a RCBO?

 

[Jazza]

not too sure on install date, why do you ask that?

 

[Jazza]

the board is an old style wylex, not sure what fittings you call them, but someone has put some ge mcbs like you see on the newer boards.

can you get an rcbo for that

 

[DurhamSparky]

as regs changed in 2008!!! if it was existing and it was installed to 16edition then its fine (providing bonding is connected)!

to many people jump on the RCD "save you life cover all scenario"

if a recent addition then 17th would stipulate RCD etc....!!


they have installed push in MCBS!! you CANT get push in RCBO!!


back to original question thoough yes you can install a RCD "After" the Fuse! or why not split the tails and install a Standalone box for shower!!

 

[telectrix]

because if it was compiant at time of installation, the only needs a code 4 on the PIR

 

[Jazza]

ahh I see, I dont think its a recent edition as it is wired in the original red and black. If they still want rcd protection on that circuit, is it ok to put it on the demand side of the circuit, due to the cable being visible?

 

[TPES]

Interested to know what he wrote on the PIR regarding the shower circuit and what code he gave it?

 

[Jazza]

ahh, i see. you guys know your stuff...

 

[DurhamSparky]

probably give it a 1 as never undertaken work done to previous versions at his 1 week training centre!


if im right Gas Elec are a franchise similar to Mr Electric and thus OVERHEADS = THIRST FOR CASH!!

no RCD = EASY MONEY!!

 

[Jazza]

it wasnt like a proper PIR form he had, it looked like one generated by them. gas elec i think they are called. it just had written down under observations that the shower circuit needed an RCD urgently

 

[Jazza]

can anyone direct me to the specific reg that says prior to 2008 installations do not have to meet current standards

 

[Paul.M]

By what you've said jazza it is within the regs but if the home owner is concerned about it just install a stand alone rcd unit next to the c/u as said above. Reading in-between the lines and coming up with my own thoughts, this is a company trying to threaten them into opening their wallets. I'd be rich if I had the same scumy levels that they have.

 

[DurhamSparky]

it will be in GN3 which my copy is not to hand!!

also have a read of http://www.esc.org.uk/pdfs/business-and-community/electrical-industry/BPG4_08.pdf

page 8 of that PDF

Code 4

 

[telectrix]

can anyone direct me to the specific reg that says prior to 2008 installations do not have to meet current standards

there was no BS7671(2008) when it was installed.so how could it comply with a non existent regulation?

 

[Jazza]

lol..... fair dos, i will inform them and let them know.

 

[Paul.M]

Just had a look at the 16th OSG. Shower in zone 1 must be ipx4. Any other appliance (other than heaters, showers, pumps) must be on a rcd. Seen as its old colours that's before 2008 I think that's all you need.

 

[TPES]

If installed correctly, using the correct cable CSA rating, correctly rated protective device, and the cable is installed correctly then this would only warrant a code 4 on a legitimate PIR, meaning it does not meet current regs on having no RCD protection. There is no immediate danger here.

If he's noted the shower should have RCD protection then why has he not noted it for the lighting in the bathroom?

Because it's not required to get a satisfactory on a PIR, that's why..

How do these firms get away with this scare tactic?? I'll bet we'll be seeing them on rouge traders soon..

 

[nickblake]

Gas Elec eh mm is it one of their land lords certs as they call them ,there was a guy round here doing inspection for gas elec ,no 2391 no 17 edition but he's doing inspections , as the guys have said if its up to 16th edition with a sup bond to the light as well and sup bonding in place then there not a problem with it and the coding should be code 4 does not comply with BS7671 2008 (satisfactory)as we now do periodics to the current regs

 

[Jazza]

thanks for your help guys, i will be informing my mate asap....

 

[Risteard]

Personally I believe 2 (Requires improvement) is more appropriate than 4.

Just because the 16th Edition did not state that all circuits in a location containing a bath or shower required 30mA RCD protection does not mean that you cannot in your judgement suggest that improvement is advisable.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Although it is the opinion of the inspector as to what code is warrented by any situation.
I believe that he would have a hard time justifying any code in this instance, considering as the guidance given by the ESC and the Part P schemes is that this doesn't warrent a code.

 

[SimpleSimon]

Personally I believe 2 (Requires improvement) is more appropriate than 4.

Just because the 16th Edition did not state that all circuits in a location containing a bath or shower required 30mA RCD protection does not mean that you cannot in your judgement suggest that improvement is advisable.

But if supp bonding is adequate and present why would it require improvement?

 

[nickblake]

just before the 17th edition came out i was at a seminar by the nic my answer was what they advised , when i carry out a periodic im testing to the current regulations and although the installation is up to 16th edition standards its not up to 17th edition standard so realy the only code for it is a code 4 , with a reccomendation for an upgrade ,

 

[mogga]

Loads of 5 week wonders (guys who only have experiance of 17th0 seem to put "No RCD" on forms to cover their own backsides but code wrongly

 

[Chr!s]

Are we not overlooking the requirements of the manufacturer, you'll find manufacturers were requiring rcds before the 17th

Chris

 

[SimpleSimon]

Are we not overlooking the requirements of the manufacturer, you'll find manufacturers were requiring rcds before the 17th

Chris

True. However in a PIR you may not have the instructions on hand that state this, therefore the regs would be your first point of call. If you had the instructions, suppose thata another way of looking at it.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If the manufacture's installation instructions were not available, to determine whether an RCD was required, would that not involve further investigation?
Would not a code 3 be more applicable?