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

 

[Noaksie]

With rented property and the chance of a Tennant plugging in something like a cheap usb charging plug for example. Having no RCD protection is a risk if the worst was to happen. I won't pass rented property with no RCD protection. The risk to the landlord and the electrician who signs the cert. Is just to high. You will find people who will do it with an observation. That's up to the individual.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Was not aware the Regs are now pick and mix.
When did that happen?

How about instead of doing a half arsed job, you do the job properly and comply with all the Regs, not just some of them?

 

[Risteard]

Was not aware the Regs are now pick and mix.
When did that happen?

How about instead of doing a half arsed job, you do the job properly and comply with all the Regs, not just some of them?

In fairness the Regs do not state that an installation may not be protected by a single RCD. It is one interpretation of a particular Regulation which generally leads to that conclusion.

 

[Nigel]

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.

But it is not to BS7671 to install a single up-front RCD.

An installation designed to meet BS7671 and not need additional RCD protection is no less safer than putting an RCD in. Sometimes I think the opposite is true. For example I woukd consider cables concealed in metal conduit in the walls safer than cables not in metal conduit but have an RCD as additional protection.

 

[Risteard]

But it is not to BS7671 to install a single up-front RCD.

That's not what the Regulations actually state. It is merely an interpretation of what is written.

 

[EbolaSideRoom]

Surely, if installed in 2003, this CU ought to have had a 30mA RCD for the Socket outlets only if nothing else to conform to 16th Edition? Or is my memory sketchy?

 

[Nigel]

That's not what the Regulations actually state. It is merely an interpretation of what is written.

Only someone trying to justify a get around would say that.

The Reg and the intention of the Reg is very cery clear. A single fault taking out the whole installation is not to BS7671.

 

[Risteard]

"Due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device."

That is not a prohibition. It does require the consequences to be assessed, however.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It’s not only one Regulation, and why are they only interpreted to mean something other than what they say?
How exactly does changing multiple separate circuits with individual protection to multiple separate circuits protected by a single device minimise inconvenience in the event of a fault?
How does doing such facilitate safe inspection, testing and maintenance?
How does it reduce the possibility of unwanted tripping of RCDs due to excessive protective conductor (PE) currents not due to a fault?
How does it allow for separate circuits not being affected by the failure of other circuits?

 

[Risteard]

Only someone trying to justify a get around would say that.

Not at all - it's what someone trying to have a factual debate on the particular merits and demerits of this approach would say. As I have stated numerous times it certainly isn't an ideal approach, but is nonetheless a safety improvement for the electrical installation.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Surely, if installed in 2003, this CU ought to have had a 30mA RCD for the Socket outlets only if nothing else to conform to 16th Edition? Or is my memory sketchy?

That would only be the case, if it could reasonably be expected that sockets would be used to supply portable equipment outdoors.
An upstairs flat with no garden and no off street parking, would not normally have RCD protected sockets.

 

[Nigel]

"Due account shall be taken of the consequences of the operation of any single protective device."

That is not a prohibition. It does require the consequences to be assessed, however.

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.

 

[Risteard]

An upstairs flat with no garden and no off street parking, would not normally have RCD protected sockets.

Depends on the contractor. Many put all socket outlets on the RCD protected side along with electric showers.

 

[Nigel]

Depends on the contractor. Many put all socket outlets on the RCD protected side along with electric showers.

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

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Not at all - it's what someone trying to have a factual debate on the particular merits and demerits of this approach would say. As I have stated numerous times it certainly isn't an ideal approach, but is nonetheless a safety improvement for the electrical installation.

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.