Test failed due to missing RCD

[Peterpipe]

Hi All
Recently joined the forum to ask for some information.
I recently bought a flat to let. I was advised by the letting agent to get the electrics tested, although not a legal requirement. The test was carried out by their electrical contractor. He failed the test due to the fuse board not having an RCD fitted. The fuse board is the original board fitted in 2003 when the flats where built. There has been no mods or circuits added to the system and everything is working as it should. I paid £348.00 for the test and the RCD to be installed. I have since been told that the test should not have failed due to the lack of the RCD. Have I been stitched up.
Any comments gratefully recieved
Peter

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Whats that got to do with it, exactly?

In the OPs case, before the main switch was changed, the situation was all the instances of no RCD protection warranted no more than code C3s.
By changing the main switch to an RCD, we have a non-compliant Installation, which should not have an EIC issued until the non-compliance’s are rectified.

 

[sparksburnout]

-

The whole idea of a part RCD spilt board, was so that the lights remained on for safety reasons when RCD operated. Then later it was deemed that dual RCD boards would be fitted as standard in domestic properties to increase safety.
Literally, you are going back to the dark ages when only one RCD or ELCB protected the whole installation.
Like many electricians, I don't makes the rules, but have to comply with the minimum standards set out. By all means better them.

Yes, we all know that. What we are trying to do here is deal with a real world situation, where typically, Landlords are very reluctant to do anything at all if it means spending money. Yes, obviously, the BEST solution is an RCBO board, but it's NOT going to happen, is it?? I am not living in the dark ages, with respect. It is a lot of Landlords who are living in them, and you as well if you think most of them give a s**t.

 

[Risteard]

I'll ask again:

If the operation of the RCD causing the de-energisation of the entire installation poses a danger then is the installation dangerous in the event of a power cut?

If these dangers exist then why hasn't emergency lighting etc. been fitted to mitigate this incredibly dangerous situation?

 

[Risteard]

In the OPs case, before the main switch was changed, the situation was all the instances of no RCD protection warranted no more than code C3s.

In your opinion, perhaps. Had there been an electric shower; bathroom circuits without adequate supplementary bonding or even socket outlets I would have attributed a C2.

I'm sorry but I wouldn't be giving a C3 for non-RCD protected socket outlets - or at least not unless exceptional circumstances in my view justified that approach.

 

[sparksburnout]

-

The whole idea of a part RCD spilt board, was so that the lights remained on for safety reasons when RCD operated. Then later it was deemed that dual RCD boards would be fitted as standard in domestic properties to increase safety.
Literally, you are going back to the dark ages when only one RCD or ELCB protected the whole installation.
Like many electricians, I don't makes the rules, but have to comply with the minimum standards set out. By all means better them.

Yes, we all know that. What we are trying to do here is deal with a real world situation, where typically, Landlords are very reluctant to do anything at all if it means spending money. Yes, obviously, the BEST solution is an RCBO board, but it's NOT going to happen, is it?? I am not living in the dark ages, with respect. It is a lot of Landlords who are living in them, and you as well if you think most of them give a s**t.

In the OPs case, before the main switch was changed, the situation was all the instances of no RCD protection warranted no more than code C3s.
By changing the main switch to an RCD, we have a non-compliant Installation, which should not have an EIC issued until the non-compliance’s are rectified.

In the OPs case, before the main switch was changed, the situation was all the instances of no RCD protection warranted no more than code C3s.
In your opinion.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I'll ask again:

If the operation of the RCD causing the de-energisation of the entire installation poses a danger then is the installation dangerous in the event of a power cut?

If these dangers exist then why hasn't emergency lighting etc. been fitted to mitigate this incredibly dangerous situation?

Installing emergency light would help, but it would not make the installation compliant.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

In your opinion, perhaps. Had there been an electric shower; bathroom circuits without adequate supplementary bonding or even socket outlets I would have attributed a C2.

I'm sorry but I wouldn't be giving a C3 for non-RCD protected socket outlets - or at least not unless exceptional circumstances in my view justified that approach.

That’s up to you.
Personally, I work to BS7671, not my own version.

 

[Risteard]

That’s up to you.
Personally, I work to BS7671, not my own version.

BS7671 doesn't stipulate what codes must be attributed. It clearly is left up to the inspector, so your comment is frankly silly.

 

[sparksburnout]

What is the point of issuing a C3 for no RCD protection, when 90% of the general public and 99% of Landlords will completely ignore it? It just individuals opinions that a C3 should have been issued in this case. It is not mine, I operate in the real world not some argumentative interpretation of one that some folks seem to.

 

[sparksburnout]

That’s up to you.
Personally, I work to BS7671, not my own version.

Well I'm glad you ain't doing an EICR on any rental property any of my family might have to use any time soon, that's all I can say. Sometimes matey, I reckon you just like being bloody awkward for the sake of it, just my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

BS7671 does stipulate that an installation which complied at the time of it’s design/construction is not necessarily unsafe for continued use.
As such if an installation complied without RCD protection, I would not be working in accordance with BS7671 if I were to say the installation is now unsafe simply because the requirements have changed.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What is the point of issuing a C3 for no RCD protection, when 90% of the general public and 99% of Landlords will completely ignore it? It just individuals opinions that a C3 should have been issued in this case. It is not mine, I operate in the real world not some argumentative interpretation of one that some folks seem to.

Strange that it’s my interpretation, when my interpretation is the same as the IET’s, and all the recognised bodies.
That’s all, not just the NICEIC, not just Napit, all of them.

 

[Risteard]

BS7671 does stipulate that an installation which complied at the time of it’s design/construction is not necessarily unsafe for continued use.

Ergo, it is not necessarily safe for continued service.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Ergo, it is not necessarily safe for continued service.

Of course not, there could be damage, deterioration or even non-compliant alterations.

 

[Nigel]

Yes, we all know that. What we are trying to do here is deal with a real world situation, where typically, Landlords are very reluctant to do anything at all if it means spending money. Yes, obviously, the BEST solution is an RCBO board, but it's NOT going to happen, is it?? I am not living in the dark ages, with respect. It is a lot of Landlords who are living in them, and you as well if you think most of them give a s**t.

What younare actually saying is that you are willing to lower your standards and cut corners in order to make a few quid.

That right there is a cowboy approach to any trade.