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]

I'll ask again:

If the operation of the RCD causing the de-energisation of the entire installation poses a danger then is the installation dangerous in the event of a power cut?

If these dangers exist then why hasn't emergency lighting etc. been fitted to mitigate this incredibly dangerous situation?

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

 

[Nigel]

What is the point of issuing a C3 for no RCD protection, when 90% of the general public and 99% of Landlords will completely ignore it? It just individuals opinions that a C3 should have been issued in this case. It is not mine, I operate in the real world not some argumentative interpretation of one that some folks seem to.

So you would C2 cables buried in a wall with no RCD protection?

 

[sparksburnout]

So you would C2 cables buried in a wall with no RCD protection?

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

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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

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

 

[Risteard]

Of course not, there could be damage, deterioration or even non-compliant alterations.

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.

 

[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.