Putting a spur on an old ring

[pushrod]

If you want to put a spur on a socket that is part of a ring that is connected to an old CU with no rcd protection would it be ok to surface mount inside some mini trunking?
If you are putting just one double socket on the spur does it need to be fused? and if it was two double sockets you would need it to be fused? There's only about 5 double sockets on the whole ring and it has a 32A mcb. cheers.

 

[Steve D]

The latest edition of IET Wiring Matters has quite an in-depth article on alterations on circuits. They conclude the article to say that if you're altering a circuit then you take responsibility for the entire circuit, hence you need rcd or rcbo protection.

Cheers
Steve

 

[pushrod]

Is this domestic or commercial...it makes a difference

I was thinking domestic.

 

[sparks1234]

Ah..OK as most commercial installations (0ffices etc) you wouldn't need RCD

 

[baldsparkies]

The latest edition of IET Wiring Matters has quite an in-depth article on alterations on circuits. They conclude the article to say that if you're altering a circuit then you take responsibility for the entire circuit, hence you need rcd or rcbo protection.

Cheers
Steve

Ok so ground floor sockets are wired to an older version of BS7671. We alter the circuit with an addition and are duty bound to fit rcd protection so that the entire circuit is deemed safe ie to current regs. Trouble is our actions by admission has only corrected 1 circuit what about the 1st floor ring and the bathroom shower unit and lighting circuit ect ect. Once we start down the road where do we stop. If we are saying the circuit we are working on is unsafe how can we walk away from all other circuits. As I say, the big red book needs clarification.

 

[sparks1234]

Its not your responsibility, Why not refer it to the client and let them make the decision as to whether they want to upgrade it to 17th, the 16th edition ran for long enough with little problem

 

[baldsparkies]

I agree with you sparks if something was deemed safe in the 16th does it suddenly become unsafe with the introduction of the 17th. They need a section to cover all these points, a bit like the giudance notes on what is part P notifiable and what is not. ie what you are duty bound to change and what not.

Thats it,going to bed now the wifes waiting

 

[pushrod]

Its not your responsibility, Why not refer it to the client and let them make the decision as to whether they want to upgrade it to 17th, the 16th edition ran for long enough with little problem

That would be sensible, but quite a few people are saying that it is "your" responsibility and that if the client does not want to pay for everything to be upgraded in one go you should walk away from the job.

Maybe as someone who is not even an electrician (yet) i shouldn't have an opinion on this but from what i have learnt the bs 7671:2008 are guidelines not statutory regs and so if you do work that improves safety, ie stops the need for trailing leads everywhere, and the new work meets the present regs that must be a sensible and good thing, even if it doesn't do everything at once. It means a client can undertake improvements in small affordable steps. To quote someone "rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools".

Anyone had advice from the part P schemes (elecsa, napit, niceic etc) on this sort of thing?

 

[baldsparkies]

I like your quote pushrod "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obediance of fools" At least we are discussing these points on the forum which can only be a good thing.

 

[dkent5]

The surface mounted trunking and socket outlet comply with the new regs and don't require RCD protection because they beat the 50mm rule. What you must do however, is on your Minor Works certificate write the circuit down as a departure from the current regs. This does not mean that the circuit is unsafe, it is highly likely that the original circuit was correctly installed under the regs of the time. Anyway the Zs measurement would indicate if the circuit met the new requirements and if RCD protection was required to meet disconnection times.

 

[Steve D]

The IET have clarified it in their wiring matters magazine because it was such a grey area. If we 'alter a circuit' then we have to ensure the circuit complies with current regs.

My boss is sending me to an IET seminar next week and 'alterations' are a part of the agenda so I will keep you updated with any info from the horses mouth.

Cheers
Steve

 

[dkent5]

Steve,
For a long time the regs have been called "ambigous" in areas, but again a quote on this forum says that the rules are for "the obedience of fools and the guidance of wisemen". Unfortunately that doesn't apply in law and a publication from the IET is just that, a publication. If they amend the regs then that is an entirely different matter and we should comply. But as they are not, my answer fulfills all the requirements of the current regs including the mention of certification which was omitted on most replies. There really should be a publication giving examples such as these for the relatively new spark, as a lot of sparks get embroiled in the regs and do far more than is necessary because they can be difficult to interpret.

As for the IET publication, don't hold your breath. My colleague who is a lecturer, wrote to the IET and NICEIC for clarification when I queried how and what should the cores of a three core cable, (Brown, Black and Grey) be identified when using this cable in single phase application. No answer to date.

I had to inspect a new installation and found the electrical supervisor had snipped the blue core out of a four cable (thats all they could find apparently) and sleeved the grey as neutral and black as cpc. His mate however had used the blue core as neutral at the other end. The supervisors' answer being that, that was the company policy for thee phase cable used in a single phase application.

 

[ian]

chris can you clarify
ie replace broken socket
swap a light fitting
fit a dimmer
would these also mean whole circ to comply with 17th
thanks

If you are replacing a broken or dangerous accessory you don’t have to adopt the circuit because you are making it safe. This is maintenance. However if you are simply replacing an accessory then you do.

Ian

 

[Spudnik]

If you are replacing a broken or dangerous accessory you don’t have to adopt the circuit because you are making it safe. This is maintenance. However if you are simply replacing an accessory then you do.

Ian

Light fittings and switches/sockets can be changed WITHOUT notification or certification.

 

[pushrod]

The IET have clarified it in their wiring matters magazine because it was such a grey area. If we 'alter a circuit' then we have to ensure the circuit complies with current regs.

My boss is sending me to an IET seminar next week and 'alterations' are a part of the agenda so I will keep you updated with any info from the horses mouth.

Cheers
Steve

I would be really interested to hear what they have to say about the consumer who wants to improve their installation in stages. eg put a modern safer CU in but not upgrade the lighting circuit even though it does not have an earth a la 14th or 15 th regs; or improve a ring circuit to prevent trailing leads but not rcd protect it because their CU is is old and in a restricted space. I think commonsense would say that if you are extending a circuit you would check the safety of the whole circuit and not just the correctness of the bit you are adding, but to say the whole circuit now has to comply with 17th ed regs is a nonsense! (if for example it was rcd protected but just in the old colours!). Just because an installation does not match bs 7671:2008 it does not mean it is unsafe.
The other thing is that it is the EWA 1989? and the HaSaW act that are statutory, the wiring regs are only guidelines to help installers meet those acts. If the "law" is going to say you should walk away from a job that could make an improvement to an installation because the client can not afford to improve the whole installation then the "law" is an --- (as they say) and should be changed.

 

[Gordon]

Apart from how you interperet the regs, if I saw a ring final with only one point protected by an RCD I would consider it an unprofessional installation. If you have gone to the expense of buying an RCD and enclosure why not mount it next to the cu & protect all points on the cct, you have to fully test the ring anyway in order to certify it. You could protect the spur on its own by installing a socket plate with built in RCD but these are generally more expensive than an enclosure type so what would be the point?