Split Load Board with 100ma RCD

[jibjob]

Hi Guys,

During a visit to a rented property on behalf of a local agent it was noted that the RCD in the split load board was 100mA. The property is a 1st floor flat, PME and the protected circuits are cooker & sockets. It's a Proteus board with a beast of an RCD that swallows up 4 ways! Probably installed late 80's early 90s.
Assuming it would of probably of been installed during the time of the 16th Edition, would it of been to regs of the time bearing in mind that it's a first floor property (no garden or sockets feeding equipment outside) which negated the need for any RCD protection anyway, assuming (again) things like main bonding & supplementry bonding were all present and correct.
Like to know what action you might take if you came across this as I'm in two minds on how to proceed.

Cheers

 

[ruston]

The property was probably a TT system when the board was fitted and the rcd an s type. This would have complied with the 16th edition. A code 4 would suffice on your pir providing everything else is ok.



edit to add - as I understand it on a TT 16th Edition requirements would of been 100mA RCD incomer with a 30mA protecting vunerable circuits

This is what I thought the board was, nevertheless its ok to the 16th edition as you describe it
Bleary eye moment.:yawn:

 

[jibjob]

The property was probably a TT system when the board was fitted and the rcd an s type. This would have complied with the 16th edition. A code 4 would suffice on your pir providing everything else is ok.

It's unlikely it was TT, it's part of a very large private housing estate built 80s/90's, possibly mid to late 90's so quite modern in housing terms. I know the area pretty well and all but the oldest/remotest properties that I've visited are TN systems. Each flat has own meter box built into fabric of building at foot of stairwell. The RCD only protects 2 circuits, as I understand it on a TT 16th Edition requirements would of been 100mA RCD incomer with a 30mA protecting vunerable circuits, ie sockets. The issue here really is whether this installation as it stands requires RCD protection bearing in mind when it was built. If it does then it should be a 30mA RCD not 100mA. This would mean a CU replace due to age of existing board. Thanks for reply anyhoo :smile5::smile5::smile5:

 

[ruston]

If the circuits are sound , the regs are not retrospective so there is no reason other than you are carrying out works that would require a rcd ; that any upgrade to this property would be necessary.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

In the 16th, there was no requirement to provide RCD protection to any circuits other than those of TT installations.
Socket-outlets that may reasonable be expected to suply portable equipment outdoors were required to be protected with a 30mA RCD.

The 17th requires circuits of TT installations to be RCD protected, and 30mA RCD protection for LV circuits of locations containing baths/showers, all socket-outlets intended for general use by ordinary persons, socket-outlets used to supply mobile equipment outdoors and cables concealed in walls that are not provided with another suitable method of additional protection.
The Regulations are not retrospective.
As such, unless you deem it reasonable for any of the socket-outlets to be used to supply portable equipment outdoors, the installation appears to have complied with the 16th. The 100mA RCD is additional protection that was not required by the Regulations.
It is generally accepted that the lack of 30mA RCD protection in such instances where RCD protection was not required at the time of installation, is considered a code 4 for a PIR, or C3 for an EICR.