The end of an era, the end of the pub sparky?

[SirKit Breaker]

Had an interesting conversation with my Part P assessor last week about one or two things, then we got onto the boring stuff. Apparently there are going to be some relaxations in the forthcoming reg's update, namely RCD protection. It appears that the powers that be have realised that in the real world the pub sparky is doing us out of work. this is because when we go in and try to rip off the old dear who just wants to have another socket behind the telly protected by a rewireable fuse, we cant do it etc etc etc. Well it has been decided that now we can. It will be based on risk assessment. So it will be at our discretion as to whether or not we can do the job, as long as we dont make the install any less safe than when we started. The IEE have finally woke up and realised that if we install these extra points, it is better than someone unqualified doing it. It wont be a free for all, rules about RCD's will apply, so sticking an extra socket next to the back door for the telly will still be a no no unless it is an RCD type.

Discuss........

Cheers.........Howard

 

[Octopus]

Interesting, sounds like good old common sense is about to prevail. The current rules are a little over the top and do, as SirKit Breaker says, encourages the "black" market boys who will do anything for cash and not worry about the consequences.

I do wonder how long it will be before it is the IEE get this approved and published?

 

[Marvo]

RCD's save lives. Rewireable fuses might stop wiring fires caused by overloads but they won't help when the old duck is getting defibrilated by the frayed cable on her 3-bar heater. Surely this is a step backwards not forwards...

 

[Jimmy Boy]

Did I miss something ? We have to retrospectively provide 17th ED to parts of an existing installation ?

New final yes, existing ?..

 

[DurhamSparky]

im going to get slapped in a minute but i been doing that for months!! if they want a new socket on a rewirable then i do it providing looptest and IR are fine and there is some sort of earthing in place.. i also sell them a PUSH in MCB as bit of piece of mind that no nails will be used!

i do note the MW cert what i did and i ALWAYS RECOMMEND the Installation is UPGRADED when possible! most people take a quote and normally get back to me any way so its no skin off my nose! rather me that fred from the pub!

i however wont install outdoor/bathroom/kitchen with out RCD!

 

[roukel01]

I certainly won't installing extra sockets where an RCD isn't protecting the circuit, now what I wouldn't mind seeing is being able to alter lighting circuits without having to RCD protect any work you chase into walls.

Boards and MCB's are coming down all the time, even an MK sentry board with two RCD's and 10 MCB's are about £65 these days, and lets face it, if we try hard we can have a board swapped and tested out in no time at all and the customer has a safer installation. (unless its a real pain of a swap, which we all come accross from time to time.)

 

[Paul.M]

I agreed and disagree with this one. Agree on the point that sir kitbreaker makes about it being cheaper for the customer but doesn't it make it easier for the cowboy spark to say "no luv, don't need anything extra coz I've dun a risk assessmentand no need for a rcd thingy". Let's see what is published.

 

[Jimmy Boy]

This has got my head scratching and i am too tired to grab my regs book.

Where in the regs does it say to break in to or make an addition too an existing circuit you then have to make the old circuit 17th Compliant ?..

 

[roukel01]

This has got my head scratching and i am too tired to grab my regs book.

Where in the regs does it say to break in to or make an addition too an existing circuit you then have to make the old circuit 17th Compliant ?..

it doesn't, the new work must compy with 17th edition regs, and sometimes its easier to protect the whole circuit with an RCD than just the bit you're adding.

 

[PC Electrics]

I had the same discussion with my assessor. I also agreed with him that this is a backward step. Apparently it's likely to have some votes against it come decision time. i hope it's voted off (along with that stoopid condition report).

 

[Jimmy Boy]

it doesn't, the new work must compy with 17th edition regs, and sometimes its easier to protect the whole circuit with an RCD than just the bit you're adding.

Or you could comply with 522.6.6 which if you read gives options other than the one you suggest and bury at >50mm ?

 

[ian.settle1]

Doesn't stop them from saying they can still do it for £20 and issue no certs though

 

[Jimmy Boy]

And also don't forget that a zone formed on one side of a 100mm or less thickness wall extends to the reverse side only IF the location of the accessory can be determined from the reverse side

 

[SimpleSimon]

I thought when adding onto a circuit the condition was it's not strictly necessary to RCD it providing your leaving it in just a safe a condition as you found it?

Think it's a good idea, but the argument in a court of law would than come down to personal opinion, one persons choice of risk assessment may be higher/ lower than another.
"I gave it a risk assessment just as stated in BS 7671 and deemed it not necessary. I have done what is asked in the regs. "

Bit vague really :/

 

[manda]

I'm only just learning the regs, sounds stupid to me to relax them on something that is a potential life saver? I don't know, you guys are far more in the know of what makes good sense and what is overkill. Seems to me joe bloggs shouldn't be allowed to play with peoples electrics anymore than he's allowed to fit a gas appliance. I think also part p and BS 7671 seem to differ in interpratation of some things too. All very confuddling. Maybe they shouldn't be so open to interpratation.