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]

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

 

[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.

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

Go and stand in the corner for 30 mins.

 

[Spoon]

Go and stand in the corner for 30 mins.

It's a minute per year (of your age), so I'd have to be there a lot more than 30 mins mate..

 

[Toneyz]

It may have improved the protection/safety aspect but its the danger that it could cause with the whole flat being in darkness to the occupier. How have a conclusion also come about that this is a ground floor flat?and sockets would be used for outside.

 

[Risteard]

the danger that it could cause with the whole flat being in darkness to the occupier.

It may not be ideal, but realistically what danger do you envisage. If there is a power outage is the installation dangerous?

If there is an identifiable danger with failure of the lighting then why has emergency lighting not been installed?

 

[Toneyz]

If there is an identifiable danger with failure of the lighting then why has emergency lighting not been installed?

I don't know, why didn't they fit RCBO'S?

 

[Risteard]

I don't know, why didn't they fit RCBO'S?

Obviously I can't answer that, but possibilities are availability for the particular DB, or cost, or time it would take to source them amongst others. There's really not much point in me guessing why it was done the way it was.

 

[sparksburnout]

I really don't get how anyone could imagine that having an up-front RCD in this instance could possibly be more dangerous than the worry of "all circuits being lost", as if it is some kind of regular occurrence or even that much of a disaster if it happened. I would think most people with a bit of common sense would have one of those old fashioned things called a TORCH for such things, you know, like if there was a power cut. I think some folks have some sort of phobia of losing all the power, how often does it happen??

 

[Toneyz]

It is adding a non-compliance with the regs.

 

[Spoon]

I think some folks have some sort of phobia of losing all the power, how often does it happen??

My lad does.. No power = no wifi and no ps4...

 

[sparksburnout]

It is adding a non-compliance with the regs.

Yes, we all know that, so what? It is making it safer, it's not ideal, but it's safer.