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

 

[Risteard]

I was thinking more of 314.1:

Every installation shall be divided into circuits, as necessary, to:

(i) avoid danger and inconvienience in the event of a fault.

And

314.2:

Separate circuits shall be provided for parts of the installation which need to be separately controlled, in such a way that those circuits are not affected by the failure of other circuits, and due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device.

I already quoted 314.2 ("due account shall be taken..."). 314.1 requires the installation to be divided into circuits - this has nothing to do with the RCCB. The overcurrent protective device connected to that circuit is what makes it a separate circuit. (See the definition of "circuit" in Part 2.)

 

[Risteard]

There is always exceptions but only lazy electricians put in RCD protection where it is not required in my opinion.

Rubbish. Providing RCD protection to BS1363 socket outlets was forward thinking rather than lazy. Particularly in non-domestic installations there certainly are circumstances where it is advisable to avoid RCD protection where allowable but this certainly isn't an example of that. If non-RCD protected socket outlets were to be incorporated in a non-domestic installation then really I would expect to see a non-standard socket outlet rather than BS1363 outlets. (Incidentally, this is a requirement of the Wiring Rules in the south of Ireland where RCD protection of all socket outlets has been mandatory for decades.)

 

[Risteard]

Whether such an approach improves safety, is debatable.
What is not debatable, is that both 314.1 and 314.2 require circuits to be separate.

Look up the definition of a circuit.

 

[Ian1981]

I personally would not even code a single rcd protecting an installation in a domestic setting if I saw it during an eicr.
I know that’s not the issue here but let’s not lose perspective that it’s not the end of the world.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

We all know what the definition says.
According To the definition, my fridge freezer is a circuit.
You however seem to have misread the definition.
The part where it states: “protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s)”.

 

[Nigel]

I personally would not even code a single rcd protecting an installation in a domestic setting if I saw it during an eicr.
I know that’s not the issue here but let’s not lose perspective that it’s not the end of the world.

It is a C3 all day long.

If it was acceptable then we would not be bothering with split load CUs or RCBOs. We would just wack an up-front RCD on everything. We don’t do this because it is not to Regs and shoddy.

 

[Ian1981]

It is a C3 all day long.

If it was acceptable then we would not be bothering with split load CUs or RCBOs. We would just wack an up-front RCD on everything. We don’t do this because it is not to Regs and shoddy.

no it’s poor practice which is why we provide 2 or more in an installation
A C3 implies a safety issue which I personally don’t agree however like most people I view a single main switch rcd as poor practice

 

[sparksburnout]

So it's not safer then? You actually think it is not safer? Explain please.

 

[Risteard]

I personally would not even code a single rcd protecting an installation in a domestic setting if I saw it during an eicr.
I know that’s not the issue here but let’s not lose perspective that it’s not the end of the world.

Likewise, unless I had evidence that it was causing excessive nuisance tripping.

 

[Ian1981]

So it's not safer then? You actually think it is not safer? Explain please.

If you mean me you’ve misread what I said of course an rcd is safer.

 

[Risteard]

We all know what the definition says.
According To the definition, my fridge freezer is a circuit.
You however seem to have misread the definition.
The part where it states: “protected against overcurrent by the same protective device(s)”.

I haven't misread the definition. My point is that an RCCB does not provide overcurrent protection, therefore isn't relevant to a Regulation requiring division of the installation into circuits.

 

[Nigel]

If you mean me you’ve misread what I said of course an rcd is safer.

Safer than what? Is an RCD protecting cables buried in a wall safer than metallic conduit protecting cables in a wall?

 

[Risteard]

Safer than what? Is an RCD protecting cables buried in a wall safer than metallic conduit protecting cables in a wall?

No-one suggested that earthed metallic conduit wasn't better. The reality is that in a domestic installation it's not going to be a cost-effective solution though.

That said, I previously did additions in my property in 6491B in earthed metallic conduit. However, when I replaced the DB a couple of years ago I had to provide RCD protection to everything due to other parts of circuits having buried T&E etc.

 

[Nigel]

So it's not safer then? You actually think it is not safer? Explain please.

Not necessarly no. It would be your design that would determine if it was safer or not. You seem to have an RCD everything approach without any real though or design behind your reasoning.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Is having a single RCD that never gets tested safer than not having any RCD at all?
Is having a single RCD that never gets tested safer than having separate RCBOs that never get tested?
If RCDs are so much safer, why are they no an option for cables above ceilings and below floors?

 

[Nigel]

.............

 

[Nigel]

No-one suggested that earthed metallic conduit wasn't better. The reality is that in a domestic installation it's not going to be a cost-effective solution though.

No it was specifically stated that putting in RCDs made installations safer. My point is that nobody can make a blanket statement like that. It shows no thought and is lazy.

 

[Risteard]

Nonitnwas soecificall stated that outting in RCDs made installations safer. My point is that nobody can make a blanket statement like that. It shows no thought and is lazy.

There are plenty of other reasons to provide additional protection by means of a 30mA RCD than cables concealed in the walls, however.

 

[Nigel]

There are plenty of other reasons to provide additional protection by means of a 30mA RCD than cables concealed in the walls, however.

I understand that. I am the one arguing for thought behind the use of RCds. Not the RCD everything because it is safer.

I accept that in some cases it is safer. But this is not always the case and the use of RCDs should be thiught out and only used if required.

Personally an RCD is a last resort for me. I except I do not work in a domestic setting but if an installation can be designed and installed without the need for RCDs and meet BS7671 then I will do so.

 

[Risteard]

if an installation can be designed and installed without the need for RCDs and meet BS7671 then I will do so.

I often take that approach. However where it comes to a domestic premises (which must be taken not to be under the control of a skilled or instructed person (and yes, I know these terms have been changed)) then it isn't necessarily a sensible or the best approach.

 

[sparksburnout]

No it was specifically stated that putting in RCDs made installations safer. My point is that nobody can make a blanket statement like that. It shows no thought and is lazy.

You need to consider the situation as presented in the OP and not the strange world you seem to reference. In the real world, anyone who doesn't think that providing RCD protection for socket circuits in rented accommodation is more than "lazy". I would like to see you weedle your way out of it if you were ever in front of a judge, should a tenant end up dead in such circumstances, for the sake of fitting an RCD. just get real!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Providing RCD protection is not really at issue here.
The issue is using a single device to protect multiple circuits, instead of individual devices for each circuit.

 

[sparksburnout]

I understand that. I am the one arguing for thought behind the use of RCds. Not the RCD everything because it is safer.

I accept that in some cases it is safer. But this is not always the case and the use of RCDs should be thiught out and only used if required.

Personally an RCD is a last resort for me. I except I do not work in a domestic setting but if an installation can be designed and installed without the need for RCDs and meet BS7671 then I will do so.

Well you might not have noticed but we are talking about just such a setting, so it seems to me you are talking out of your proverbial.

 

[driverman]

Ok, so an RCD has been fitted instead of the existing DP isolation switch. So, it has now been deemed safer. But...it still doesn't comply.
When RCD operates, the whole installation is switched off. Now, by todays standards is that correct? Solved one problem created another.

 

[sparksburnout]

Ok, so an RCD has been fitted instead of the existing DP isolation switch. So, it has now been deemed safer. But...it still doesn't comply.
When RCD operates, the whole installation is switched off. Now, by todays standards is that correct? Solved one problem created another.

OMG, the WHOLE installation is off, the world has ended. But no one has died.