S

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
 
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?
 
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...
 
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.)
 
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.
 
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 ?..
 
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.
 
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).
 
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 ?
 
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
 
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 :/
 
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.
 
What the admendment to the regs are aimed at is spurs of an existing ring final circuit. If you fitted a single point off the ring without using a FCU then you are duty bound in the regs to make that single point compliant to the regs and therefore fit an RCD to the ring final circuit. Regs 411.3.3 and also 522.6.6

Most sparks that are fitting 2 or 3 extra sockets via a FCU will usually fit a RCD type and so the new sockets will conform to the BS 7671-2008

The amendment to 411.3.3 as now added that on a MIEWC it would be permitted not to fit a RCD as additional protection if the designer deemed that fitting the extra socket/sockets was not a risk to the exisiting installation

The IET have also amended reg 522.6.7 to be called 522.6.102 also covering this. So providing that the disconnection times are met the need for fitting a RCD will not be required. If the Zs is sufficiently low enough to disconnect the protection device then as the designer you are complying with the regs if you don't feel the need to fit a RCD.

It's now our call ................
 
It's now our call ................

Not yet it isn't.

This subject has been discussed for a long time now, since the new draft amendment was open to view.
Anyway, I'd be very surprised if this relaxation ever comes to pass. All the scheme providers are against it and have made it clear to the IET that it's a backward step. I sat in on a seminar on this subject at the last ELEX in Coventry, representatives from NICEIC, ELECSA, NAPIT and the electrical safety council all spoke out against it.
 
Last edited:
Thing about this admendment is that once again the IET are shifting the onus onto the electrician/designer. Thus my comment at if it did go through it would indeed be our call.

I think like a lot of electricians in the real world we would prefer clear and precise regulations espicially regarding protection, it's ok to interpret certain areas of the regs but some should be clear and concise.

Regulation 411.3.3 was a concise and definate one, it clearly outlined that domestic sockets apart from certain conditions should be RCD protected. In fact I always thought the part about skilled and instructed people was not required and that all sockets below 20amp should be rcd protected in whatever enviroment. After all you always had in the reg exception part (b).

If the admendment did go through then you open this reg upto all sorts of interpretations and in our blame someone culture any electrcian/designer not fitting an RCD will have to now prove why he didn't. Zs results of course will prove disconnection times and they will be used as the reason why one wasn't fitted, but the bottom line will always be that a RCD will make the circuit safer even with fantastic Zs results and if one was fitted would an incident whatever it would be, have happened.

Our industry at this time is under enourmous pressure, with many poorly qualified electricians now coming into the market place, who will now use this reg to cut corners and not fit an RCD to their work citing the proposed admendment. I personally hope it does not go through, but I hope more that the IET stop fence sitting and start to write clear concise and binding regulations that 90% of electricians will gladly work to.
 
A quick question guys I know you all love ya regs and everyone is after a bit of extra work but ......here goes. Would it not be prefereable to fit an extra socket for some one then they go out and buy a cheapo 5 way extension and run the cable under the carpet ?????????? just wondering ! after all they are adding an extra socket without any of your OTT form filling etc. Sorry if this upsets anyone just seems strange to me.
 
Of course it is preferable to fit an extra socket ..............and fitting it safely is why we do all that form filling.

The question is a little obtruse to be honest as even after fitting that extra socket there is nothing stopping someone buying half a dozen adaptors and 20 extension leads and fitting them to that single socket. to run all manor of things. But as a professional sparks you know that the socket will trip on a fault or overload and that you have proved the disconnection time of the protection device by that form filling.

If that person with their extension leads burns their house down or injures someone then your from filling is going to prove that what you did was safe and correct, and it was the extensions leads that led to the problem.
 
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...
Try read again, the strict rules are pushing the qualified sparkies away from the work as the customers choose cheaper bodge it and run cowboys, now surely any rule that gets the cowboys back off the scene is safer and also the new rules wont make the installation more unsafe than already is a risk assessment will be done and customer adviced, this in the long run is safer than the customer dragging in a cowboy which is what is happening .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also with regard to the 'new' ammendment regarding RCD protection.....or not, if we decide it is not neccessary then we must note it on the certificate.


[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]411.3.3 Additional protection[/FONT][/FONT]
In a.c. systems, additional protection by means of an RCD in accordance with Regulation 415.1 shall be provided for:
(i) socket-outlets with a rated current not exceeding 20 A that are for use by ordinary persons and are intended for
general use, and
(ii) mobile equipment with a current rating not exceeding 32 A for use outdoors.
An exception to (i) is permitted for:


(a) socket-outlets for use under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons
, e.g. in some commercial or industrial locations


, or

(b) a specific labelled or otherwise suitably identified socket-outlet provided for connection of a particular item of

equipment



, or.

(c) minor works associated with existing socket-outlet circuits not provided with additional protection by means of

an RCD where the designer is satisfied that there would be no increased risk from the installation of the addition
or alteration. The decision shall be recorded under part 2 of the Minor Works Certificate or the comments section
of the Electrical Installation Certificate (see notes 1 and 2).





[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Note 1: [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]For minor works the installer is often the designer of the addition or alteration.

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Note 2: [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]The recording of this decision does not constitute a departure from this Standard.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I do find more than a little "difficult" is the seemingly lack of restrictions applied to the major DIY stores.

Just yesterday I was in one and there were 2 chaps buying parts to add a new circuit from the CU - from listening in to what they were saying they had absolutely no regard for the legislation we "approved" skilled trades people have to abide by.

Isn't about time DIY stores had more restrictions on what they can and can't sell to the public?
 
At last, perhaps the IEE are listening to those who work on the "shop floor"
It does make sense though!
Thanks for the info! :)
 

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Green 2 Go Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses Heating 2 Go Electrician Workwear Supplier
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Advert

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Thread Information

Title
The end of an era, the end of the pub sparky?
Prefix
N/A
Forum
Business Related
Start date
Last reply date
Replies
24

Advert

Thread statistics

Created
SirKit Breaker,
Last reply from
robswainelect,
Replies
24
Views
2,904

Advert

Back
Top