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

 

[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.

 

[Nigel]

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.

Well no because any spark worth their salt would change the CU and install RCBOs.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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

Depending of course on circumstances.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

This is an upstairs rented flat.
Most likely on a key meter and most likely the CU will be down stairs, could even be in the cellar.
RCD trips, everything goes off, no lights no power nothing.
First thoughts are that the meter’s run out, take the key down to the meter and put it on emergency.
Manage to get to the meter without falling down the stairs, discover the meter’s not run out, the main switch has tripped.
Try to switch it back on, it trips again.
It’s 9pm, phone the Landlord, he’ll get someone out tomorrow.
No heating, no lighting no cups of tea......

 

[driverman]

-

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

The whole idea of a part RCD spilt board, was so that the lights remained on for safety reasons when RCD operated. Then later it was deemed that dual RCD boards would be fitted as standard in domestic properties to increase safety.
Literally, you are going back to the dark ages when only one RCD or ELCB protected the whole installation.
Like many electricians, I don't makes the rules, but have to comply with the minimum standards set out. By all means better them.

 

[sparksburnout]

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.

Whats that got to do with it, exactly?