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]

Nobody has mentioned that no RCD protection to circuits serving a room with a fixed bath or shower would be a Code 2. So I'm assuming the bathroom has a light and possibly a shower?
However, I agree that individual RCBOs would have been the best solution.

Not if supplementary bonding is in place.

 

[Octopus]

Nobody has mentioned that no RCD protection to circuits serving a room with a fixed bath or shower would be a Code 2. So I'm assuming the bathroom has a light and possibly a shower?

Not convinced I agree with that statement.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Should not have failed due to lack of RCD protection.
Flat was converted in 2003, no requirement at that time for RCD protection, other than for sockets which could reasonably be expected to supply portable equipment outdoors.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Never mind anyone getting "called out" the point in question was the safety of the landlords Tenants. Would you be happy if one of your family was living in a rental with no RCD protection? I will assume a "no" to that one, you can always take another view of course.

I would be perfectly happy for any member of my family to live in a flat above ground level without RCD protection. Presumably all flats were electrical death traps until the fairly recent introduction of blanket RCD coverage? I don't think so.

 

[buzzlightyear]

I would be perfectly happy for any member of my family to live in a flat above ground level without RCD protection

and till some one with a big F88k drill starts putting holes I the walls for pictures, especially with concrete floors .

 

[7029 dave]

C3 , that is the most, which is not unsatisfactory, just recommend upgrade.

 

[Octopus]

And the ones installed in the 1970's and 1980's didn't catch fire either ........... it was the onset of plastic enclosures and more importantly dam right flimsy main switches, MCB's and neutral bars that caused all the problems...

 

[Mjgriff82]

Really? How about if there are no RCBO's that will fit?

Sure the pic from the Op shows Wylex NSB which are pretty much readily available in either rcbo or mcb, if not still could have fitted a small dinrail enclosure to house a couple of Rcbos

 

[elsparko]

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?

 

[Oli G]

I've always been asked to follow these guidelines when carrying out EICRs for my employer.

 

[Toneyz]

I th

Not if supplementary bonding is in place.

ought it was the opposite supplementary bonding could be omitted if conditions were met and under 701.411.3.3 circuits had to have protection by RCD/RCBO.

 

[sparksburnout]

I would be perfectly happy for any member of my family to live in a flat above ground level without RCD protection. Presumably all flats were electrical death traps until the fairly recent introduction of blanket RCD coverage? I don't think so.

But you wouldn't be even happier if it did ?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

and till some one with a big F88k drill starts putting holes I the walls for pictures, especially with concrete floors .

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

 

[Deleted member 9648]

But you wouldn't be even happier if it did ?

I would, but there is a trend towards a view that everything is dangerous without RCD protection which is simply nonsense.

 

[sparksburnout]

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

your just being f***k stupid now.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

duplicate post deleted

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I th

ought it was the opposite supplementary bonding could be omitted if conditions were met and under 701.411.3.3 circuits had to have protection by RCD/RCBO.

For the purpose of an EICR a code 2 would be appropriate only if neither RCD protection or supplementary bonding were in place, if only the latter is present a code 3 is sufficient .

 

[sparksburnout]

I would, but there is a trend towards a view that everything is dangerous without RCD protection which is simply nonsense.

I rest my case then.

 

[sparksburnout]

I would, but there is a trend towards a view that everything is dangerous without RCD protection which is simply nonsense.

I rest my case then. Argghh its done it again!!!!!

 

[buzzlightyear]

your just being f***k stupid now

fight fight!

 

[buzzlightyear]

can we get this post to 100 please!

 

[Deleted member 9648]

your just being f***k stupid now.

Maybe

 

[Toneyz]

Of course, RCD's & RCBO's are only reliable if tested quarterly many times I've gone to test an existing RCD/RCBO and it has failed to operate as it has stuck.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Weird how additional protection is now seen as primary protection.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

can we get this post to 100 please!

Yes.