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]

This has to be the silliest post I have ever read.

To me it actually looks like the silliest answer to a post above...

 

[Risteard]

Because an up front RCD has been installed to protect such cables.

Nonsense. It has been installed for numerous reasons. That is one of the benefits of it being fitted - but certainly not the only one.

 

[sparksburnout]

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.

I am not quite sure what the point, or inference of this comment is, but if that's the best you can do then I can't see much point in continuing to be honest. I'm out.

 

[Nigel]

What the hell has that got to do with the specific circumstances of this OP?

I replied to your post that said what is the point in C3ing lack of RCD protection. No point backpeddling now.

 

[Leyland30]

Retrospective improvements to old installations should be based on a cost vs risk assessment - circa £30 for an RCD sounds like a sensible cost given the significant risk reduction it achieves as a result. However, I don’t believe the installation should have failed in the first instance.

You may have been miss-led but I don’t believe you have been ripped-off.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Retrospective improvements to old installations should be based on a cost vs risk assessment - circa £30 for an RCD sounds like a sensible cost given the significant risk reduction it achieves as a result. However, I don’t believe the installation should have failed in the first instance.

You may have been miss-led but I don’t believe you have been ripped-off.

Sounds good, but....
What use is an improvement that doesn’t comply?

 

[Toneyz]

Sounds good, but....
What use is an improvement that doesn’t comply?

That will give a C3 requires improvement on the next inspection.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

No. What the Regulations are stating is that an installation installed to an earlier Edition may not necessarily be unsafe. We can take this to mean that this isn't referring to damage etc. - it's referring to an installation actually complying with an earlier Edition. Therefore the Regulations are clearly stating that it may or may not be unsafe - this must be determined.

It isn't unsafe because it complies with an earlier Edition - it may, however, be unsafe (or less safe than it should be) due to some of the things which have been done which now aren't considered acceptable or even considered now to be unsafe.

No Risteard, what it means, is that an installation doesn’t require upgrading just because it doesn’t comply with new requirements.

I don’t know, people talk about living in the real world, but they’re too blind to see the real world.
New Regulations don’t just pop into existence the day they're issued.
If something in the current Regulations is found to be unsafe, it would be negligent of the IET to wait until the next edition is published to inform us.
It would be doubly negligent to then tell us we don’t have to comply for six months after the new edition has been issued.
To then tell us we can continue to install an installation after the new edition has come into force, simply because it was designed before the new edition came into force would be criminally negligent.
No one can say an installation is safe, without first inspecting it.
An installation designed and constructed to the current Regulations is not necessarily safe, even if it complied at the time of construction.
Why you should think that anyone would treat an installation constructed to an earlier edition differently beggars belief.

What I suggest you do, is not try to interpret the Regs, not try to skew their meaning to suit your own particular view, just take them as written.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

That will give a C3 requires improvement on the next inspection.

Or if there were any justice a conviction for fraud.

 

[Risteard]

No Risteard, what it means, is that an installation doesn’t require upgrading

Do you actually not know the difference between "doesn't require" and "doesn't necessarily require"?

The repetition and incorrect assertions are becoming boring.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Do you actually not know the difference between "doesn't require" and "doesn't necessarily require"?

The repetition and incorrect assertions are becoming boring.

I think perhaps you should look up the dictionary definition of necessarily.

 

[mrloy99]

A far better solution would have been rcbo's for the socket circuits.

And leave the rest NOT covered? Surely bathroom lights have been reqd to have rcds for at least 10 years and the rest needs it for cables buried in walls

 

[mrloy99]

A far better solution would have been rcbo's for the socket circuits.

And leave the rest NOT covered? Surely bathroom lights have been reqd to have rcds for at least 10 years and the rest needs it for cables buried in walls

 

[telectrix]

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.

i wouldn't say it was less safe, but the inconvenience of 1 out, all out , is not compliant with current regs. ( loss of all lighting, freezers etc., due to an unrelated fault). reason that i split our garage feed from a non-RCD way on a hi-integrity CU ( 3 freezers and fridges. outside socket is RCD socket.).

 

[mrloy99]

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

Hi Peter
I haven't read all of the posts on here so please excuse if this has been covered already.
I'm fairly sure it is indeed a legal requirement on change of user to have inspection carried out.
The code should be C3 for no rcd for socket outlets.C3 for no rcd on bathroom circuits and C3 for no rcd for circuits with buried cables.
The cost of the I.R. is about right slightly cheap if anything...The price for the 1 rcd (plus presumably an installation cert or minor works cert to cover this) Was a little cheeky. Just make sure you get ALL the paperwork.

 

[elsparko]

its not even like the guy can say that the fuseboard is in a packed understair cupboard, looks like it is high level and in the hallway?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

This has turned into a farce.
Firstly unless the original flat is ground floor a code 3 would be appropriate for lack of RCD protection to any circuit.... unless SB is not in place in bathrooms , that and lack of additional protection to sockets which may supply equipment outdoors would warrant a code 2.
The only issue here is that as a remedial measure the electrician has introduced another non-compliance, which should itself warrant a code 3.
It has been said that some would not even mention an up front 30ma RCD on an EICR. A recent ground floor flat that I tested had just that, and I gave it a code 2 as the flat was occupied by an elderly lady and the CU was out of reach at ceiling level.

 

[Toneyz]

This has turned into a farce.
Firstly unless the original flat is ground floor a code 3 would be appropriate for lack of RCD protection to any circuit.... unless SB is not in place in bathrooms , that and lack of additional protection to sockets which may supply equipment outdoors would warrant a code 2.
The only issue here is that as a remedial measure the electrician has introduced another non-compliance, which should itself warrant a code 3.
It has been said that some would not even mention an up front 30ma RCD on an EICR. A recent ground floor flat that I tested had just that, and I gave it a code 2 as the flat was occupied by an elderly lady and the CU was out of reach at ceiling level.

Some members on here have not taken into account that there could be a whole range of different occupiers.

 

[Octopus]

I think the IET have totally forgotten about

K eep
I t
S imple
S tupid

The problem with the IET is that Engineers write this carp, Engineers proof read this Carp and Joe Public and the sparking community adopt different interpretations.

 

[telectrix]

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?

presumably because above ceilings and below floors, the cables have been installed deep enough to not be subject to nail or screw penetration.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

presumably because above ceilings and below floors, the cables have been installed deep enough to not be subject to nail or screw penetration.

Have the same options as for cables concealed in walls, except for RCD protection.
Depth greater than 50mm, cable with earthed screen, earthed trunking or conduit and mechanical protection.

 

[Ian1981]

You are more likely to nail a cable in the wall through hanging objects on said walls, than damaging cables which should be installed deep enough through and above the ceiling

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You are more likely to nail a cable in the wall through hanging objects on said walls, than damaging cables which should be installed deep enough through and above the ceiling

Of course, no one has ever just notched the top of a joist to run cables, or used an existing notch for pipework.
All joists and battens are greater than 100mm, no one’s ever laid a wooden floor on a concrete slab, or fixed new plasterboard over existing lath and plaster using 1” battens.

 

[Pete999]

Of course, no one has ever just notched the top of a joist to run cables, or used an existing notch for pipework.
All joists and battens are greater than 100mm, no one’s ever laid a wooden floor on a concrete slab, or fixed new plasterboard over existing lath and plaster using 1” battens.

One site I was involved with back in the 70s the flats had a concrete slab, with roofing battonslaid, not fixed then normal floor boards fitted normally, wiring laid in the voids between the battons, I didn't stay long on that site, decided that sort of botch was not for me.

 

[Toneyz]

presumably because above ceilings and below floors, the cables have been installed deep enough to not be subject to nail or screw penetration.

It used to be greater than 50mm Tel.