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 9648]

So you'd code 3 an external socket without RCD protection in an existing property?

depends, does this outside socket already have its own rcd?

The clues in my original post mate

 

[Deleted member 26818]

My understanding, is that installations which complied at the time of design/construction but do not comply with current editions do not require upgrading.
As such anything that complied at the time of design/construction should only warrant a code C3.
As RCD protection for sockets which would reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment used outdoors was a requirement of both the 15th and 16th editions, it is unlikely that an external non RCD protected socket complied.

In such a situation I would use code C2 for all instances where RCD protection is now required.

 

[Octopus]

A new sticker is required for consumer units.

PLEASE NOTE
THIS INSTALLATION INCORPORATES AN RCD FOR TW£TS WHO DRILL HOLES WITHOUT CHECKING FOR BURIED CABLES

Probably more sensible than the stupid dual colours warning labels ....

 

[elsparko]

The clues in my original post mate

disconnect and remove socket from wall, shove cables in the hole and walk away

its the only solution

 

[Deleted member 26818]

disconnect and remove socket from wall, shove cables in the hole and walk away

its the only solution

Nah, replace with RCD socket.

 

[elsparko]

Nah, replace with RCD socket.

blasphemer

 

[Spoon]

What have people got against CU's with only 1 RCD... Some are making it sound like they trip every month....
How many people on here have a CU with just 1 RCD? How long has it been since it tripped? Mine has been quite a bit. A few years. When the daughter knocked her drink over which was above a socket..

 

[Deleted member 26818]

What have people got against CU's with only 1 RCD... Some are making it sound like they trip every month....
How many people on here have a CU with just 1 RCD? How long has it been since it tripped? Mine has been quite a bit. A few years. When the daughter knocked her drink over which was above a socket..

It’s just that it’s poor design and doesn’t comply with BS7671.

 

[Spoon]

It’s just that it’s poor design and doesn’t comply with BS7671.

I agree, it isn't the best design and it doesn't comply with the current regs, but it did when it went in.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I agree, it isn't the best design and it doesn't comply with the current regs, but it did when it went in.

What did?
The RCD in the OP installed last week?

 

[Risteard]

My interpretation from what you have said is that not having an RCD in the fuse board is an advisory not a fail

Notwithstanding the fact that I haven't seen the installation in question I would almost certainly have issued an Unsatisfactory assessment in the absence of any 30mA RCD.

 

[Risteard]

My understanding, is that installations which complied at the time of design/construction but do not comply with current editions do not require upgrading.
As such anything that complied at the time of design/construction should only warrant a code C3.
As RCD protection for sockets which would reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment used outdoors was a requirement of both the 15th and 16th editions, it is unlikely that an external non RCD protected socket complied.

In such a situation I would use code C2 for all instances where RCD protection is now required.

Rubbish. What about fused neutrals which complied when installed?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Rubbish. What about fused neutrals which complied when installed?

What about them?
What about the fact we are allowed to construct an installation designed to an earlier edition?
Don’t tell me that on the same day I complete an installation in accordance with BS7671, it doesn’t comply because a new edition was introduced last week.

 

[Ian1981]

You can’t be saying that you would only C3 an installation which employed a fused neutral as part of its fault protection?
However rare this might be.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You can’t be saying that you would only C3 an installation which employed a fused neutral as part of its fault protection?
However rare this might be.

As far as I am aware, BS7671 has only ever allowed single pole switches, circuit breakers and fuses to be installed in A.C. line conductors, and prohibits any such device (unless linked to all other live conductors) from being installed in earthed A.C. Neutral conductors.
I cannot imagine applying a code C3, it would either be a code C2 or no code at all.

 

[westward10]

Actually found this a couple of weeks ago and I thought it was dead until a time clock kicked in and livened it up. Does some external Christmas lighting supplies.

 

[Deleted account]

Was the DNO contacted to pull the incoming or fit a a double pole isolator to comply with live working regs in order to swap the main switch for an rcd.
That may explain the cost.

 

[Nigel]

He's taken out the mains switch and replaced it with the RCD

Then this electrician has taken a perfectly acceptable installation and made it an unacceptable installation.

(Assuming sockets are not likely to be feeding portable equipment outside)

 

[Octopus]

Then this electrician has taken a perfectly acceptable installation and made it an unacceptable installation.

(Assuming sockets are not likely to be feeding portable equipment outside)

and overcharging at the same time.

 

[Nigel]

Look it is like this - it probably did meet requirements at the time. Whether it does now or not maybe be the subject of debate, however, for your own and more importantly your tenant's safety fitting one would be a good idea, and not expensive, as you have seen. Do you know what one does? Like I said before the spark has probably been in this situation loads of times before and been completely ignored by penny pinching landlords. Or, there may also be a good reason, so if I were you I would just crack on. He has not taken the mick with his price, IMO. Who was it told you that it should not have failed anyway? Have they been to the installation and done another EICR??

It is this type of lazy approach to sparking that bothers me. Itnis not a given fact that just installing RCDs ‘make it safer’.

The ‘RCD everything’ approach without no design or thought behind it is not what we ahould be doing. We could just say ‘wire everything in SWA makes it safer’. Why do we not do this? Because we need to ise our skill and interpretation to determine if these extra precautions are actually needed.

In this instance a safe installation has been made less safe by installing an ‘up-front’ RCD which is not to Regs.

 

[Risteard]

Then this electrician has taken a perfectly acceptable installation and made it an unacceptable installation.

(Assuming sockets are not likely to be feeding portable equipment outside)

I don't agree. He has improved the safety of the installation. Certainly it would have been better to use multiple RCDs, but it's not correct in my view to state that he has made things worse by protecting the installation with an RCD.

Front-end RCDs don't tend to trip very often - normally only when there is a fault.

 

[sparksburnout]

It is this type of lazy approach to sparking that bothers me. Itnis not a given fact that just installing RCDs ‘make it safer’.

The ‘RCD everything’ approach without no design or thought behind it is not what we ahould be doing. We could just say ‘wire everything in SWA makes it safer’. Why do we not do this? Because we need to ise our skill and interpretation to determine if these extra precautions are actually needed.

In this instance a safe installation has been made less safe by installing an ‘up-front’ RCD which is not to Regs.

What a load of rubbish.

 

[Spoon]

What a load of rubbish.

I'm curious. What part is rubbish? How is it not safer?
I agree with @Risteard .

 

[Risteard]

Then this electrician has taken a perfectly acceptable installation and made it an unacceptable installation.

(Assuming sockets are not likely to be feeding portable equipment outside)

I don't agree. He has improved the safety of the installation. Certainly it would have been better to use multiple RCDs, but it's not correct in my view to state that he has made things worse by protecting the installation with an RCD.

Front-end RCDs don't tend to trip very often - normally only when there is a fault.

I'm curious. What part is rubbish? How is it not safer?
I agree with @Risteard .

I believe @sparksburnout is agreeing that it is an improvement to safety.

 

[Spoon]

Sorry @sparksburnout ... Totally misread your post..
Thanks for the clarification @Risteard