recently inspected property

[alrebcon]

A housing Associations electrician has been and tested a property (Relet) that my sister now lives in and installed an rcd onto the ring main, the only thing is the fuseboard has cartridge fuses and the cooker has a socket on the control unit, are they allowed to do this instead of changing the fuseboard as i think this is unacceptable.
Any info to go back to them with will me much appreciated.

 

[Mr Mark Sparks]

i would say that its ok as it probably complied with the regs at the time it was built, and we cant enforce new regs to an old installation, rcd to skts may have been done as they may be used for out door equipt and this was a 16th ed reg

 

[Sintra]

Nothing wrong with cartridge fuses as Mark said installations do not need to be upgraded to the 17th edition.

 

[Sparky Ninja]

If the improvements were done for the purposes of the decent homes standard, then you may have a case.

 

[alrebcon]

Thx for the reply. The inspection was done recently and i think the rcd was also installed recently . If we cant enforce the new regs to old installations then how can they get away with just putting an rcd on the ring main which was the old solution to comply with the 16th edition regs. if they are going to upgrade the old installation then surely they have to bring it up to current regulations. I do appreciate the information so please keep it coming.
Thx

 

[polo1]

You've had the correct answers. Regulations are not retrospective. I suspect that the installation of the RCD is, as has been stated, to provide protection for socket outlets which may be used to power equipment for use outside e.g. a lawnmower, hedge trimmers etc. They are under no requirement to replace the consumer unit to a dual rcd or high integrity board.

I'm not quite sure what you see the as problem. The landlord will have carried out a Periodic Inspection Report prior to your relative being let the property. If you have not seen this, then you should ask for a copy.

Regards.

 

[truckster]

If the cooker panel has a socket on it that should also be on an RCD under the 16th shouldn't it

 

[Des 56]

You were right to question the works done if unsure
You would also be right to accept the reasoned veiws of the replies you were given

 

[Des 56]

If the cooker panel has a socket on it that should also be on an RCD under the 16th shouldn't it

Just read that as I posted
The socket on the cooker need only be labelled "not for external use"

 

[Deleted member 26818]

From the information you have supplied, the installation has not been upgraded.
An improvement to safety has been installed, on one circuit.
The fact that one or more circuits now meet the requirements of the 17th, does not necessarilly mean that all circuits must meet those requirements.
There is nothing in the current Regulations prohibiting the use of cartridge fuses.
Under the 16th edition, RCD protection was required for socket-outlets that may reasonably be expected to be used for portable equipment outdoors.
The 17th requires all socket-outlets intended for general use by ordinary persons, and any used for mobile equipment outdoors to have RCD protection.

 

[pushrod]

.

. The landlord will have carried out a Periodic Inspection Report prior to your relative being let the property. If you have not seen this, then you should ask for a copy.

.

Not necessarily - it is recommended but there is no statutory requirement for the landlord to have had a PIR carried out.

 

[polo1]

Not necessarily - it is recommended but there is no statutory requirement for the landlord to have had a PIR carried out.

In fairness, I've applied what Housing Association's do in Scotland - and they do PIR at change of tenancy - apologies if that is not the case in England & Wales.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It's possible that a PIR was conducted whilst the property was void, and that the inspector coded the lack of RCD protection as a 2.
Everything else whilst not complying with current Regulations, might have only warrented a code 4.
In most instances, a code 2 is deemed unsatisfactory, so rectifying the code 2 would then make the installation satisfactory.

 

[PC Electrics]

As it sounds like it's an older install and it only has RCD protection to one circuit, you should check that the main protective bonding and supplementary bonding to the bathroom are adequate.

In all other respects what you describe is quite acceptable.