What would you do?

[polo1]

Just had an interesting "discussion" with a fellow spark. Job was/is to replace a single lighting pendant in a first floor bathroom (loft above) with five IPX5 downlighters. Cables clipped to top side of 50mm roof trusses. Board only has RCD covering three ring mains and no spare way on this side of the board. Switch drop is between two sheets of plasterboard with a two inch gap and is not being modified.

RCBO or not for the amended lighting circuit?????

Regards

 

[telectrix]

this is where regs. ain't specific enough. too many ways to interpret them. my take is " if in doubt, err on the side of caution, CYA"

 

[Guitarist]

this is where regs. ain't specific enough. too many ways to interpret them. my take is " if in doubt, err on the side of caution, CYA"

Totally agree. The regs keep stressing that we are the professionals and that our judgement will influence what we do. Even in a like-for-like situation I may say that I am not happy with an installation and decide that an upgrade is necessary in all good conscience. I would never rip anybody off but sometimes I er on the side of caution.

 

[sedgy34]

i dont know if you know but the question of rcds were in dispute a few years ago they were nearly redundant

 

[Guitarist]

i dont know if you know but the question of rcds were in dispute a few years ago they were nearly redundant

Well, that doesn't surprise me. We would have been the only Country in the civilised world not to use them had they gone...

 

[morph]

the regs are clear
all bathroom circuits are to be RCD protected, lights are being added
why is there a debate

 

[Paul.M]

the regs are clear
all bathroom circuits are to be RCD protected, lights are being added
why is there a debate

That is the debate.

Tell me the reg that states a modified lighting circuit out of zones installed to previous regs needs to be on an rcd?

Please show me up with a definitive answear.

 

[Paul.M]

@ Morph. I didn't mean that as a threat or a challenge. Just a question regards to the regs in this situation.

 

[Adam W]

It wasn't installed to previous regs though, the downlighters are being installed in accordance with current regs which require rcd protection.
The only arguments for not rcd protecting seem to be based around technicalities; if you didn't want to install an rcd would you do a like-for-like and install another pendant in the bathroom because the regs say you can? The fact that it was installed before the 16th edition doesn't make it any safer and doesn't alter the fact that the addition of rcd protection would leave the installation in a safer condition and bring it up to current standards, equipotential bonding or otherwise.

IMO yes it does need rcd protection.

 

[Guitarist]

That is the debate.

Tell me the reg that states a modified lighting circuit out of zones installed to previous regs needs to be on an rcd?

Please show me up with a definitive answear.

Paul, I don't understand your point on "zones" here. If new wiring is being added to enable 5 lights to be installed (I'm assuming that they are not all in one place) then the circuit is being altered and needs to conform with the 17th edition. This states that in a bathroom all circuits must be RCD protected.

 

[Wiredspark]

It would have taken less time to fit the RCBO than it was to read this thread. Thankfully I take a copy of BGB on site and use it sensibly. (Sometimes as a door stop).

 

[BlueToBits]

One down light replacing one pendant could be argued to be like for like, the other 4 down lights are unarguably an extension to the original circuit. The un-modified switch wire is irrelevant, the zone is irrelevant as they are all IP rated, it's in a room containing a fixed bath or shower. RCD needed.

 

[Guitarist]

it's in a room containing a fixed bath or shower. RCD needed.

Exactly

 

[polo1]

All,
thanks for taking the time to respond. I asked the question a) because I disagreed with another spark as to what was required and b) because I thought it would be a common type of job and would probably generate various points of view:13:....and it's certainly done that!

Just for clarity, all five downlights are out of zone (although one is above the shower tray and only 30mm outwith the zone). All the lights are IPx5. My view remains that the circuit has been extended (and hence modified) and therefore it requires RCD/RCBO protection under the 17th.

Sooo, thanks again for the opinions - I luv this forum!

 

[sedgy34]

Paul m
You won't get anyone state the reg as there isn't one
The word interpretation is magical that's why them people who wrote the regs use it

 

[morph]

@ Morph. I didn't mean that as a threat or a challenge. Just a question regards to the regs in this situation.

no offence taken, osg states the need for all circuits to be rcd protected, not sure of reg number of the top of my head or even if there is one